Christine Russell: I thank my right hon. Friend for his helpful reply. Does he agree that the principle of fairness must be central to any reform of local government funding? Will he look at the present situation, as it is estimated that one in three low- income households entitled to council tax benefit does not make a claim?

Bob Russell: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 19th October.

Tony Blair: Before listing my engagements, I know the whole House will join me in sending our condolences to the family of the British soldier who was killed in Basra overnight. He and his colleagues were doing a vital job in Iraq, helping that country become the democracy that its people want, as the millions who voted on Saturday in Iraq showed.
	This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I will have further such meetings later today.

Tony Blair: I do not accept that. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman looks at public sector debt and deficits, he will find that they are among the lowest in the G7. We have a record on unemployment, on growth, on inflation and on interest rates that compares extremely favourably with that of other countries—interest rates are about half of what they averaged during the Conservative years. Since we are quoting, I shall quote this to the right hon. and learned Gentleman:
	"Fifteen per cent. interest rates, sky-high mortgage arrears, negative equity, bankruptcies, entrepreneurs giving up the ghost on private-run companies and a lot of people losing their jobs. I don't think there was a family in the country that didn't experience at least one of those anguishes."
	Not my words, but those of the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood). I know that he is neither a present nor a past contender for the leadership of the Conservative party, but he shared a Cabinet table with the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and I think that his testimony is good.

Michael Howard: And my right hon. Friend shares my view that that was because of our entering the exchange rate mechanism. Conservative Members have learned our lesson, because we are firmly committed to not joining the euro. Let us return to the record of this Government and this Chancellor: is it not the case that it is the Chancellor who thwarted the Prime Minister's public reform agenda, that it is the Chancellor who is guilty of dressing up the public finances and that it is the Chancellor who is ramping up taxes on hard-working families? If the Prime Minister's legacy is important to him, why on earth does he not stand up to the Chancellor, instead of planning to hand over to him?

Michael Howard: We agree that that was the right thing to do eight years ago. Since the Prime Minister is so keen on the figures, let me give him some figures about his Government's performance: growth forecasts are down and the trade deficit is up; manufacturing jobs are down and taxes are up; competitiveness is down and red tape is up; and productivity growth is down and borrowing is up. We have fallen from 4th to 13th in the competitiveness league table; we are 15th out of 27 in productivity; we are 51st in the league table for Government regulation; and we are 67th on the efficiency of our tax system, 28 places behind Cambodia. Yet the Prime Minister preens himself on his conduct of the economy. Why does he not use the time that he has got left to stop being hoodwinked by his Chancellor and face up to the reality of the true state of the British economy?

Tony Blair: I now have 67 statistics that I want to read out.—[Interruption.] I'm joking—fortunately. We can compare economic records, but our economic record stands comparison with the best not only of our past, but of other countries. It is true that growth has slowed, as it has in all major countries, but I think that I am right in saying that this is the only major economy anywhere in the world that has weathered the economic storms of the past few years without a recession. It is true that there have been small increases in the unemployment claimant count, but employment has continued to rise and unemployment is way down on a few years ago.
	The right hon. and learned Gentleman has said that we agree about Bank of England independence. I must point out that he did not agree at the time and that he opposed it. At that time, he also opposed extra investment in our public services, the reform of student finance and the minimum wage. I understand that he has converted himself on all those propositions, and I suggest that he convert himself on this one: the steady progress in investment and reform in our public services has seen record school results, falls in waiting times and waiting lists, and people getting better cancer and cardiac care. That is why we should continue with this Government's policies.

Tony Blair: I do not think that it is authoritarian to say that the police need powers in respect of antisocial behaviour in local communities, including fixed penalty notices, closing down pubs where there is regular fighting outside, and putting in place antisocial behaviour orders. That is not authoritarian: it is putting the interests of law-abiding people first.
	We are putting forward the 90-day period—although of course it is to be subject to judicial oversight every seven days—because the police tell us that they believe that such a power is necessary to prevent terrorist acts.
	It is truly absurd to say that introducing identity cards—as, after all, large numbers of countries have done—is an authoritarian act. What we are trying to do, whether in respect of terrorism, antisocial behaviour or identity abuse, is to protect the decent, law-abiding people of this country. The debate is not advanced in any shape or form by the type of language that the right hon. Gentleman uses on civil liberties. I accept that the civil liberties of this country are an important part of our tradition—[Interruption.] Let me say to Liberal Democrats that there is also a civil liberty to walk down the street without abuse, a civil liberty to ensure that we, as a country, do not lose out as a result of illegal people trafficking and identity fraud, and a civil liberty that is the right to life. In government, difficult decisions have to be made by weighing up those matters and finding a balance. As far as I am concerned, I shall put the decent, law-abiding citizens of this country first and foremost.

Tony Blair: I am sure that there will be a debate as my hon. Friend suggests, and I have no doubt that there will be a great deal of discussion on the issue as the months and years unfold. I do not think that anyone pretends that the independent nuclear deterrent is a defence against terrorism; none the less, I believe that it is an important part of our defence. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has already made it clear that the Government will listen to hon. Members before making any decisions on replacing Trident. No decisions on replacing it have yet been made but they are likely to be necessary in the current Parliament. It is too early to rule in or rule out any particular option. As we set out in our manifesto, we are committed to retaining the UK's independent nuclear deterrent. My hon. Friend will doubtless make his views clear, as will other hon. Members, and we will make our decision ultimately in the best interests of the country.

Tony Blair: I am afraid that I do not know enough about the circumstances of the hon. Gentleman's PCT, but I am happy to correspond with him about it. However, according to my information, the PCT for his area has £89 million in funding—a considerable increase on a few years ago. There are also more nurses, more consultants, more general practitioners and doctors in training in his area since 1997. I cannot answer the question about the details of his particular PCT, but I can say that, in common with other PCTs, it has had a considerable increase in its financial resources.

Tony Blair: We certainly should. However, there are two separate issues here. One is the reorganisation of the PCTs, and full consultation on the new boundary arrangements proposed by strategic health authorities will take place. Stakeholders and those interested in the issue, including my hon. Friend, will be able to make their representations clear. The second thing is to ensure that we introduce greater contestability in the health service. I believe that to be absolutely vital in order to introduce greater patient choice. Despite what people have said over the past few years, every time we have offered patients the ability to choose so that they get swifter access to NHS care, they have wanted it. Exactly as I want the law-abiding citizen to be at the centre of the criminal justice system, and the interests of parents and pupils to be at the centre of our education system, I want the interests, desires and influence of patients to be at the centre of an NHS that is free at the point of use but modernised for today's world.

Tony Blair: I am sure that people will voice their opinion about the matter, but it is important that we make step-by-step progress in Northern Ireland. In July, we had major progress, with the report of the Decommissioning Commission. Over the coming months, I want to make sure that we arrive at a situation in which we can get the institutions back up and running again in Northern Ireland. Along the way, difficult things will be done on all sides, but that is the step that we must take, and I would have hoped that the Democratic Unionist party, along with others in Northern Ireland, would support the objective.
	I understand the strong feelings on the matter. Sometimes, on other issues, we do things that Sinn Fein, the Social Democratic and Labour party and others do not like. I believe this to be a sensible step in trying to revitalise the institutions and devolved government in Northern Ireland, however, and that is our aim. We have come a long way in doing that, but we must complete it.

Tony Blair: First, may I apologise to Changemakers for having breached their copyright? I assure my hon. Friend that we very much support its work, and funding such work is part of a programme over the coming years in which, as well as taking tough measures on issues such as anti-social behaviour, we are prepared to put real resources into young people, volunteering activities and things that help to bring the community together. Changemakers is a national organisation and is recognised by us for its work. I hope that she will pass on our congratulations to those engaged in Changemakers in Newcastle.

Francis Maude: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require an audit of existing or planned infrastructure in areas of significant housing development.
	This Bill requires the Government to be joined up. There is a huge disconnect between the Government's diktat that many tens of thousands of new houses are to be built in West Sussex over the next 15 years and the provision being made to support infrastructure. I am especially concerned about the secondary health infrastructure, which is already in deep crisis and deteriorating fast. There are also major problems with transport and water capacity, neither of which is being addressed seriously by the Government.
	The Government's approach to housing development is totally prescriptive: they call it "predict and provide"; it feels much more like "accept and obey". The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has made it clear to our county councils that the number of homes ordered to be built in the south-east is non-negotiable. That means that the number of new homes to be built in West Sussex is set to be 2,900 each year for the next 20 years. That would rise to 4,200 a year if the Barker proposals were accepted, as the Government seem to indicate that they might be, or if the Deputy Prime Minister sought to overrule the South East England regional assembly recommendations already made. On the smaller basis, West Sussex would have an extra 58,000 homes and an extra 85,000 people, which is equivalent to building another town the size of Crawley in West Sussex.
	That level of house building is among the highest in the south-east, but West Sussex has not been designated as one of the Government's growth areas. The result of that is that we get all the new housing but without the provision for new infrastructure that accompanies growth area status. Of course, funding for key public services like health and education is based on GP lists and school rolls, which inevitably means a lag of at least two years between population increases and the increased funding. In the meantime, of course, schools and hospitals are strapped for cash.
	According to the all-party Environmental Audit Committee,
	"The Government's ambitions for new housing in the South East, if met with undue haste and an absence of thorough environmental appraisals, will lead to significant and effectively irreversible environmental damage."
	We are still waiting for those environmental appraisals, but people in the area know that the implications for the environment are dire. Not surprisingly, there is overwhelming local resistance to the proposed levels of house building. Recent polls suggest that two thirds of local people oppose the increases, and about the same number simply do not believe that the supply of infrastructure, particularly NHS hospitals, will keep pace with new house building.
	Those people are right to be concerned. Not only are hospital services not being enhanced; they are being actively and daily run down. The Surrey and Sussex healthcare trust, which runs both Crawley hospital and East Surrey hospital at Redhill, has languished at the bottom of the Government's star rating system for the last four years. Regrettably for its long-suffering staff and patients, it has never been given more than one star, and for the last two years it has been awarded none. That places it in the bottom 5 per cent. of all acute hospital trusts in England.
	The trust is battling to live within its existing income. It has a rolling £30 million deficit, which is likely to reach £60 million by the end of the year. According to its chairman,
	"Surrey and Sussex healthcare trust would be bankrupt if it was a company."
	In recent years, there has been a consistent pattern of acute services' being moved from Crawley to Redhill. On each occasion, we are assured that this will be the last service to be removed from Crawley; then, a few months later, off goes another service. Acute trauma, maternity, and accident and emergency services have gone. More recently, operating theatres have closed, and redundancies now seem likely.
	We would mind less about all that if the Redhill hospital could cope with the extra work being driven to it, but it cannot. Members may have seen television coverage of ambulances queuing outside the accident and emergency department. At Redhill, it is not how long people wait on a trolley that is measured, but how long they wait in the ambulance before even getting on to a trolley.
	There is a similar picture in Mid-Sussex, with consultant-led maternity services moving from the Princess Royal hospital at Haywards Heath to Brighton. It is not absurd to speculate, given the current trends, that pretty soon there will be barely any acute hospital cover in West Sussex. The public feeling, however, is that more, not fewer, hospital services are required. The south-eastern county councils have estimated that the region will need an additional 1,800 acute and 900 general hospital beds over the next 15 to 20 years, which is equivalent to six medium-sized hospitals.
	The Department of Health's own inquiry produced a recommendation that there should be a new hospital at Pease Pottage to serve this fast-growing area, but, in a classic example of disjointed, dysfunctional government, the Secretary of State himself turned down the proposal. The new hospital really is needed, however. Since the Government vetoed it, attracting permanent staff to the Surrey and Sussex trust has been increasingly difficult. In the last three years the trust has spent £58 million on temporary staff, and £21 million has been spent in the past year alone. Probably about £30 million of that was wasted; it could have been invested in hospital infrastructure to attract top teams of staff to rival those at the best London teaching hospitals. I strongly urge the Secretary of State to reopen the files, have another look at the Bagnall report of three years ago, and re-examine the case for a new hospital at Pease Pottage.
	I mentioned the water capacity problem earlier. That problem is already severe, and it is growing. The Government's own favourite think-tank, the Institute for Public Policy Research, recognises the seriousness of the problem. Its commission on sustainable development in the south-east observes
	"Only with significant water efficiency savings in existing and new homes, and the timely provision of new water resources, will there potentially be enough water to meet rising demand for new housing and domestic consumption."
	The Bill would force a serious rethink about those infrastructure shortages. It would require a full audit of existing or planned infrastructure in areas of significant housing development. It would not preclude the Deputy Prime Minister from continuing to impose excessive housing development on the south-east, but it would make it much more embarrassing for him to do so without proper provision being made for the necessary infrastructure. It would lay bare for public scrutiny the deficiencies in Government thinking and planning.
	As I have said, I oppose the huge increases in house building currently being contemplated. However, this Bill would ensure that any new house building was matched with adequate infrastructure. For West Sussex, it should lead to a new hospital being built at Pease Pottage. For all those reasons, I commend this Bill to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to brought in by Mr. Francis Maude, Mr. Tim Boswell, Greg Clark, Mrs. Nadine Dorries, Mr. Nick Gibb, Charles Hendry, Nick Herbert, Tim Loughton, Mr. Nicholas Soames and Mr. Andrew Tyrie.

Chris Grayling: I beg to move,
	That the matter of the evidence given by the right hon. Member for North Tyneside to the Transport Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on Transport, Local Government and the Regions on 14th November 2001 be referred to the Committee on Standards and Privileges.
	I am very grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing this important motion to be put to the House today. It is important because of what should be one of the most fundamental principles of this House and the way that our parliamentary democracy operates. Ministers may be evasive, they may be difficult, they may be downright disingenuous; but they must not lie to the House of Commons. The charge that lies on the table in front of the right hon. Member for North Tyneside (Mr. Byers) is that on 14 November 2001, he lied to a Select Committee of this House. It is not for me to judge his guilt, although I have my views. But it is for this House to judge his guilt.
	I do not intend to make a long speech to propose this motion, but I do need to give the House a little of the background to it before Members decide whether or not this matter should be considered by the Standards and Privileges Committee. In November 2001, I was a member of the Transport Sub-Committee, under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). It was six weeks after Railtrack had gone into administration, and we were in the midst of an inquiry into the future of the railways and the circumstances that had led to administration.
	The story that we had been told was that the Government had begun the process to force Railtrack into administration only after a meeting that had taken place some three months earlier, on 25 July of that year, between the chairman of Railtrack, Mr. John Robinson, and the right hon. Member for North Tyneside. We were told that Mr. Robinson had warned at that meeting that if Railtrack were to survive, it would need additional Government support. Without that support, its future was in doubt.
	During an evidence session that formed part of our inquiry, I asked the right hon. Gentleman:
	"was there any discussion, theoretical or otherwise, in your department before 25 July about the possibility of a future change in status for Railtrack, whether nationalisation, the move into a company limited by guarantee or whatever?"
	He replied:
	"not that I am aware of."
	You will be aware, Mr. Speaker, that the right hon. Gentleman has since admitted that that response was inaccurate, and he has apologised both to the House and to me. So why have I not accepted that apology, and why do I believe that the House should not do so? The right hon. Gentleman has accepted that he commissioned a review of the future of Railtrack—from a joint working party comprising representatives of his Department, the No. 10 policy unit and the Treasury—well before that date. In his personal statement on Monday, he said that
	"the commissioning of work to be carried out on the future options for Railtrack did not represent discussions in the true meaning of that word."—[Official Report, 17 October 2005, Vol. 437, c. 640.]
	I have to say, Mr. Speaker, that I regard that answer as utterly unconvincing. It alone might have been enough to persuade me to press ahead with today's motion. However, the latest evidence to emerge from this period is, in my view, decisive.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) obtained on Monday copies of the minutes of a meeting held at No. 10 Downing street on 6 July 2001. That meeting was attended by the right hon. Member for North Tyneside, the permanent secretary of his Department, the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the head of the No. 10 delivery unit and the Prime Minister. That minute refers very clearly to a discussion about the future structure of Railtrack.
	In that light, I cannot and do not accept the statement made to the House on Monday by the right hon. Gentleman. It is of paramount importance that Members can rely on the testimony given to us by Ministers. That is why I hope the House will join me in supporting the motion, so that the matter can be properly examined. If the right hon. Gentleman is innocent, his name will be properly cleared; if he is guilty, he deserves the censure of the House.

Geoff Hoon: The Government support the motion, because it is necessary for the House to refer possible breaches of the rules to the Standards and Privileges Committee for investigation. The Government respect the privileges of the House and we will uphold them. They are crucial to the independence of Parliament and the strength of our democracy.
	It would be wrong of me to anticipate the Committee's report and I hope that hon. Members on all sides of the House will wait until it has reported before passing judgment on my right hon. Friend the Member for North Tyneside (Mr. Byers). In particular, I urge Members to refrain from treating the matter as a party political question. I know that my right hon. Friend welcomes consideration of this issue by the Standards and Privileges Committee. Indeed, with the leave of the House, I would be willing to respond to any further points, as necessary.

David Heath: May I say how much I welcome the views just expressed by the Leader of the House? There is a well established mechanism within the House for dealing with these matters—through the Standards and Privileges Committee. It is a Committee on which I served during the last Parliament, so I know how seriously it takes its responsibilities. Notwithstanding the comments of the right hon. Member for North Tyneside (Mr. Byers) in his personal statement on Monday, on which I say nothing at this stage, I believe that there is a prima facie case for investigation. It is right for the Committee to have the opportunity to investigate further. Although this is a House matter, I recommend that my right hon. and hon. Friends support the motion if it is put to a vote today.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: Select Committees of the House are set up to monitor the work of Government Departments. They must be able to do that fairly and freely. I know that we all support that idea and the work of those Committees has expanded because they have the support of the House.
	It is neither the time nor place to debate the wider implications of this matter, but it is clear that, in future, the House will have to consider the powers of Select Committees to ensure that the evidence given to them is not only reliable but can be verified. I hope that we will have the opportunity to return to that issue in future. In the meantime, on behalf of my Select Committee and myself, I support the referral to the Standards and Privileges Committee.
	Question put and agreed to.

Eric Pickles: What a difference a few short months make in the Government's view of the world. It seems but a moment ago—the mere passing of slight time—that I was standing at the Dispatch Box extolling the virtues of abandoning a council tax revaluation, only to be met with vitriol and abuse from Government and Liberal Democrat Members. In fact, it is only the Liberal Democrats who remain in favour of an immediate and complete revaluation. Three times that once great party has voted for revaluation and I suppose that those votes were not entirely wasted. In modern politics, we are supposed to have a degree of empathy with other people and the Liberal Democrats can now feel empathy with Labour Back Benchers, because they also now know how it feels to be let down by Labour.
	The Government were steely in their determination to bring about revaluation and unwavering in their support for an immediate one. For example, the Prime Minister commented in the Daily Star on the Conservative pledge at the last general election to cancel revaluation. He said:
	"It's a complete con. From the Conservatives this really is the most desperate opportunism."
	We had an even more robust view from the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford)—it is a pleasure to see him in his usual place—in July, when he said:
	"it is intellectually and economically illiterate to suggest that one can have a system of council tax without a need for periodic revaluation. That is why we introduced arrangements for a regular, 10-yearly revaluation."—[Official Report, 4 July 2005; Vol. 436, c. 51.]
	I expect that he was surprised when, within 11 short weeks of those words, they blew up in his face. I would not have liked to have been in the Minister's shoes when he made the phone call to tell the right hon. Gentleman that all his hard work had been torn up as soon as he left office.
	What has caused the Government's near Damascene conversion to the Conservative position? I say "near" because the Government propose a postponement, not a cancellation. There are two possible explanations for the U-turn. The written statement on 10 October announced that the Government intended to introduce legislation to postpone the revaluation for council tax in England. It stated:
	"The case for council tax revaluation . . . is linked to wider questions about the structure of the council tax, and to the operation of council tax benefit. It is also relevant that there are a number of other imminent changes in the local government finance system, including the move to three year budgets, the review of the local government finance formula, and the creation of a dedicated schools budget."—[Official Report, 10 October 2005; Vol.437, c. 5–6 WS.]
	I was surprised only that the statement did not add that the revaluation had to be postponed because the letter r appeared in the month of September. Every single thing mentioned in the statement was known when the Lyons review was set up and revaluation was planned.
	The second explanation therefore has a ring of truth, and it comes from the mouth of the Minister of Communities and Local Government. When asked outside the Table Office by one of his colleagues from the west midlands why the Government had postponed the revaluation, he said that it would be too difficult, too hot to handle and had to be dropped. It is a sad fact that, on occasions in this place, having a clear voice can be a disadvantage.
	This is not a policy: it is a postponement for others to pick up when the Minister has moved on to pastures new. Many will agree with the judgment of the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich who wrote in this week's Municipal Journal that the Government had a
	"loss of nerve over revaluation".
	Why revalue? A myth has grown up around the need to revalue, but it is a conventional wisdom that needs to be challenged. I know that because I was once seduced by the conventional orthodoxy. I was once persuaded that the emperor was wearing a shiny new suit rather than being naked of ideas or legitimacy. I was not alone. Even such august bodies as the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors have been persuaded that the emperor is not in the altogether. In its otherwise excellent brief prepared for this debate, it states:
	"Fundamental to the fairness of the tax base for Council Tax is an up to date valuation list supported by frequent and consistent revaluations. The current valuation list is based on 1991 values. Since 1991 . . . average house prices have increased by some 216 per cent."
	It is neither fundamental to the council tax nor to its fairness that revaluation takes place—and it entirely misses the point. As my colleague Lord Hanningfield said in the other place:
	"Statutory revaluations will take council tax further towards being solely a property tax . . . Council tax was originally devised as a tax which was part property based and part service based."—[Official Report, House of Lords17 July 2003; Vol. 651, c. 976.]
	When the council tax was first introduced, there was no provision for revaluation. The purpose of a revaluation is to correct grossly disproportionate movements in the housing market. It may be that, over a 10-year period, those movements are negligible, and that going through the expense of a revaluation cycle is unnecessary. What matters in council tax valuation are comparative prices between different parts of the country. Those have remained unchanged for the last decade. That is why Northern Ireland has operated quite happily on valuations set 30 years ago and that is why Scotland's First Minister, Jack McConnell, has been at pains to make it clear that
	"There are no plans for a property revaluation in Scotland for the council tax or for any other purpose".—[Scottish Parliament Official Report, 12 May 2005; c. 16822.]

Nick Raynsford: As it appears that hon. Members on both sides of the House are making a virtue of making U-turns, can the hon. Gentleman tell us why he is not prepared to take his logic further? When a property changes hands, it is subject to revaluation, so why does he not propose that that should also cease?

Maria Miller: Is not the simple truth that council tax rebanding is just another stealth tax? In my constituency, there will be a double whammy. House price increases are up to 13 per cent. higher than the regional average over the last year and all those houses will face rebanding, with bills soaring by more than £300 a household. At the same time, Hampshire county council is warning of an inflation-busting council tax rise next year because it received one of the lowest grants in the country. Is not it time to scrap rebanding?

Eric Pickles: I am certainly aware that, in the hon. Lady's constituency, council tax has gone up by eight times the rate of inflation, but there was a constitutional settlement in Wales—we had a devolved settlement—[Interruption.] The Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Jim Fitzpatrick) says from a sedentary position that that was not in our motion, but he will recognise that the House set up the National Assembly for Wales, so we should not shirk our responsibilities. It is a pitiful sight when Labour Members of Parliament and Assembly Members try to blame each other for those savage rises.

Lembit �pik: Although I accept that all parties recognised the principle of revaluation, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the real issue is Labour's inability to implement that process in anything that resembles a just and fair settlement? As a result, council tax has not only become random but it hits the peopleoften the elderlywho can least afford to pay the increases.

Albert Owen: The hon. Gentleman was talking about Wales and the fact that there was unfairness in the way that the council tax was made up and that it was unhelpful towards some pensioner groups. The Welsh Assembly Government changed the spending assessment to help the poorest local authorities, yet the Conservative group in the Welsh Assembly voted against that change. How does he square that circle?

Eric Pickles: I shall give the hon. Gentleman a serious, non-partisan answer. I have rapidly come to the conclusion that council tax is too crude an implement to be used for social engineeringthat goes to the heart of the dilemmaand in a few moments, I shall make some suggestions about how we can improve it. The situation has become complex and difficult it. That is not a party political view.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman put clearly on record his view of the decision that was taken in the Welsh Assembly, where a proposal opposing revaluation could have been made by any Opposition Member, but not a single vote was registered in opposition to revaluation in Wales? Were his own colleaguessome of whom are present now, with a dual mandatewrong not to vote in opposition?

Chris Bryant: On an entirely non-partisan point, I should like to take the hon. Gentleman back to his earlier confession of his change in point of view, because it would be interesting to know more about it. There are some real problems with revaluation whenever it is undertaken. Often, it is not just the house price at a certain moment that is of importance, but how it has changed over the past three, four or five years. For example, in the Rhondda, we had virtually no house price changes for several years, but suddenly over the past three years we have had dramatic changes in house prices. In the past year, they have gone up by 56 per cent. Sometimes, it can seem extremely unfair merely to base revaluation on a snapshot. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman would like to reconsider the Tory party position. Although delay might be a good idea because we might need to ensure that any future revaluation is more sane than other revaluations that have happened, I merely point out to him that, in the Rhondda, quite a lot of people went down a band, not up.

Eric Pickles: Yesanother smash-and-grab raid against middle England's savings. Only the Labour party and the Minister of Communities and Local Government could find ways to pursue poor people beyond the grave.[Interruption.] Apparently, it is suggested from a sedentary position that the Under-Secretary is at fault. Nevertheless, the right hon. Gentleman must accept some responsibility.
	We know that the Government are examining information technology as a way of bringing in more money. They sent out a questionnaire on tax rebanding to IT firms in which they asked about four additional council tax bands and higher band multipliers so that people in higher bands would pay more money, although the band of their properties had not changed. They have suggested cutting eligibility for discounts and exemptions. They have also considered discount schemes to cushion millions of council tax payers who move up two or more bands. The Government claim that the suggestions are not proof of likely reforms, but if that is the case, why are they asking such questions?
	The Lyons review is just another depressing example of the ping-pong between structure and finance. We seem to go through a process of trying to change the way in which local councils are financed or structured. Revaluation and regionalism are two extremes of the massive ping-pong process. That is a great pity, because changes in local authorities are taking place without anyone really understanding their impact. Strategic partnerships and local area agreements clearly show how adaptable local authorities can be.
	I firmly believe that function and finance are two sides of the same coin. If we were sensible, we would give local authorities the ability to share their sovereignty, responsibilities and resources. We would allow money to follow services and function to determine structure. Local authorities with a common concern could thus band together to provide better services for their electorates. It will be a good thing if Lyons recognises that change, but it will be bad if the review just leads to a further extension of the salami-slicing that has affected local government for so long.
	Local government is one of the most adaptable of our institutions. We should give it freedom, and instead of trying to control the way in which local grant is distributed, we should allow money to follow services. We should work for local diversity. If we could do that, we would have the chance of building a real consensus, instead of worrying about the knock-on effects of one specific change.
	For too long I have been listening to debates in this Chamber during which we have put together various schemes that have required transitional periods. Those periods become complicated, so another scheme comes along, which requires another transitional period that must be related to the first transitional period. That process must stop. We have an opportunity to give local government its head and some freedom, and that is essentially what new localism should be about.

Phil Woolas: I beg to move, To leave out from House to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
	welcomes the Government's decision to postpone the revaluation of council tax in England in order that it may take full account of Sir Michael Lyons's further work on the functions of local government as well as its financing; supports the Government's extension of Sir Michael's terms of reference, which will enable him to review the strategic role of local government and therefore set any proposals for the reform of the funding system within the context of that role and of councils' accountability; recognises that the devolution settlement for Wales gives responsibility for council tax matters to the National Assembly for Wales, and that the context for rating reform in Northern Ireland is very different from that in Great Britain; refutes any suggestion that Northern Ireland is being used as a testing ground for reform in England; and looks forward to the final report of Sir Michael Lyons's inquiry which it is confident will provide a real opportunity for fundamental and lasting reform.
	I am delighted that the Opposition have chosen to debate this issue. I was genuinely thrilled when I found out the date of the debate, because I now have the opportunity to put on record the Government's future intentions on policy and to respond to criticisms that have been made outside the House. I genuinely welcome the debate.
	The last time that we debated council tax in the House was 4 July. Since that date we have made an important announcement on postponing the revaluation, which was described by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) and othersand indeed by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Communities and Local Governmentas a U-turn. We were honest and up front about the decision, which I shall explain in some detail today.
	The announcement of 20 September was important not only because of what it said about the revaluation exercise, but because of the extension of Sir Michael Lyons's independent inquiry. After reaching the decision to postpone the revaluation, we thought it right and proper for several reasons to make the announcement at that time, not least because the preparation work undertaken by the Valuation Office Agency could be stood down to minimise costs. The hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) has tabled questions about the matter and made points about it, but not all the money spent could fairly be described as having been wasted. The vast bulk of the money was for computerisation and data collection, and that work will be valid in the future. If we had continued the work and waited until the House had returned to make the announcement, she could have made such a charge.

Phil Woolas: May I put the situation on record, after which I will be more than happy to take interventions?
	Given the importance of the announcement and the widespread interest in it, I regret that we were unable to make it when the House was sitting.

Phil Woolas: May I put the background on record? Then we can move on to policy points.
	My right hon. Friend the Minister of Communities and Local Government wrote at the time to all hon. Members with English constituencies to explain the decision. No discourtesy at all was intended to you Mr. Speaker, or the House.
	There has been a huge amount of posturing by the Government's opponents and a lot of misinformation has been produced about the revaluation decision and policy, so the debate is a useful opportunity to clear the air and get the facts straight before we debate the Bill to postpone revaluation, which received its First Reading on 14 October. Copies of the full text of the 20 September announcement are of course available in the Library. Nevertheless, I think that it is important that I set out fully what it says.
	The House will recall that the Government appointed Sir Michael Lyons in July 2004 to carry out an independent inquiry into local government funding. He has made good progress with that remit and I should stress that the original remit stands. We have extended the remit, not replaced it. Sir Michael has discussed with Ministers his work so far. His initial conclusion is that well-founded recommendations on possible reforms to the funding of local government cannot sensibly be made in isolation from a proper consideration and understanding of the developing role and functions of local government, not only by central Government but by the population at large.
	Sir Michael has made it clear that any proposals for reform of the funding system raise complex issues. The Government have agreed that they need to be set firmly and explicitly in the wider context of a clear and shared understanding of the role of local government and of the accountability of councils to service users, residents and taxpayers. It was for that reason that my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Deputy Prime Minister extended the terms of reference of the inquiry.
	The Government have agreed with Sir Michael that he will review through a series of discussion documents the current and emerging strategic role of local government in the context of national and local priorities for local services, including the implications of that for accountability. He will also review how the Government's agenda for devolution and decentralisation to local councils, together with changes in decision making and funding, could improve local services, the responsiveness of those services to users and, of course, local authorities' financial efficiency. In the light of that work, Sir Michael will address critical funding issues, including fairness, accountability, clarity, efficiency and effective management. He will produce his final report at the end of 2006. I know that when taking forward the new remit Sir Michael will want to work closely with local government as well as drawing on the assistance of Government Departments. I hope and expect that other parties present will participate in those discussions.
	The additional work that Sir Michael will undertake will add value to the Government's current work on a strategic view of the role and functions of local government under the local:vision programme, about which I shall say more later. It will also contribute to the comprehensive spending review 2007, which will set the path for local government funding for the medium term. To set the scene for that work, later this autumn Sir Michael will set out his preliminary thinking and publish research and analysis undertaken so far, drawing out the relationship between local government function and finance.
	It is obvious to everyone that the future of local government is critical to the future of the country, of local communities and of individuals.

David Miliband: It is a rolling programme.[Laughter.]

Phil Woolas: My hon. Friend's question allows me to put the situation on the record again. In the statement announcing the postponement of revaluation we made it clear that we did not believe that revaluation would take place during this Parliament. We went no further than that, and it is for Parliament to decide the future. Second Reading of the Council Tax (New Valuation Lists for England) Bill is imminent, giving us an opportunity to debate these issues in more detail. The decision rests with Parliament but, none the less, the Government's policy is that revaluation has been postponed, not cancelled. The exact timing partly depends on any actions that may arise from the recommendations of the Lyons report.
	It is right to maintain a fair alignment between house prices and council tax bands. The case for council tax revaluation is linked to wider questions about the structure of the tax and to the operation of council tax benefit. A number of other changes in the local government finance system are in the pipeline, including the move to three-year budgets, the review of the local government finance formula and the creation of a dedicated schools budget located in the Department for Education and Skills.

Phil Woolas: My hon. Friend has made an interesting contribution. It is because of such questions that I put the other side of the coin, which opponents of the council tax rarely acknowledge. A substantial proportion13 per cent., I believeof income generated by council tax is repaid through the council tax benefit system. Indeed, a pensioner on guaranteed pension credit does not pay council tax.[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) was trying to make a point, but I did not quite catch it. I am sure, however, that I will answer his concerns in a few moments.
	The Government have decided that it would not be sensible to proceed with the current timetable for revaluation. Sir Michael's analysis so far has led him to conclude that there may be a case, as I told my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), for a delay of up to a year in the implementation of revaluation. However, the Government concluded that the balance of advantage lies with allowing the flexibility to revalue as part of a fully developed package of funding reforms, rather than as a precursor to them, and at a moment of greater financial stability for local authorities. That is the background to the decision.
	I should like to make the Government's position on council tax quite clear. First, as we said in our response to the balance of funding review, we accept that council tax should be retained but reformed. That was why we appointed Sir Michael Lyons in the first place. Secondly, as I have said, we remain committed to council tax revaluation even though 2007 is not the right time for it. Council tax is related to property values. As we said in our 2001 White Paper, the Government fully recognise the importance of keeping property values up to date. That remains our position. We are postponing, not cancelling, revaluation. We need to ensure that we get revaluation and reform of council tax right, and that is why Sir Michael is conducting an extended inquiry. There was a great deal of unnecessary scaremongering by the Opposition about the effects of revaluation. Revaluation would not mean that individuals would pay more council tax just because their house had gone up in value. Nevertheless, many people believed that it would because of statements made to that effect. Many properties would stay in the same band. That has been made perfectly clear all along, despite reports that appeared in the press. Thirdly, the Bill that we have introduced and which we will debate in due course is simply concerned with timing requirements. All the other provisions are unaffected. I trust that the Bill will receive the full support of the main Opposition party, as it is keen to cancel the 2007 revaluation.
	I must now address some myths and accusations about council tax. The Government are often accused of letting council tax rises get out of control. That accusation misses an important point. It is local councils that set council tax levels, not the Government. We have reserve capping powers, which we have used to deal with excessive increases over the past 2 years. There is no excuse for excessive council tax increases, but we should not confuse the principles of the council tax with council tax increases. There is an important difference.

Sarah Teather: The Conservatives have accused the Government of confusion over revaluation, but as the debate has been relatively good natured, let me give the Labour Government credit. They have been consistently in favour of revaluation until a few weeks ago, when they did a giant U-turn, more out of political cowardice than out of ideology. The Conservatives, on the other hand, have held half a dozen diametrically opposed positions over the same period, with no obvious guiding ideology, and as we heard again from their Front-Bench spokesman today, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles), no obvious views about how local government finance should be reformed in future.
	Let us consider Labour's record. When the council tax was introduced, countless Labour shadow Ministers argued passionately that a property tax required a revaluation in order to be valid, as we heard again today. Fast-forward to 1998 when the Labour Government were in power and produced a White Paper, Modern Local Government. Their position then was essentially that revaluations are necessary, but not yet. Four years later, in 2002, the Government decided that the time had come. The Local Government Bill set out a timetable for revaluation in 2005 in Wales and 2007 in England, and every 10 years thereafter.
	A few weeks ago, as we know, the Government got extreme cold feet about the political repercussions of revaluation and retreated to the comfort of the old position. As the Minister for Local Government told an audience yesterday at the meeting of SIGOMAspecial interest group of municipal authoritiesin the House of Commons, the Government postponed revaluation only after analysis demonstrated that there would be about 2.2million losers as households moved up one or more bands. They predicted that the money that would need to be set aside for appeals could destabilise local government finances altogether. I guess their position remains, We need revaluations, but not now, please. Not on our watch.
	Sadly, Wales has not been quite as lucky. We argued for the Welsh Assembly to have powers to introduce primary legislation so that it could, for example, abolish the unfair council tax system, but the Labour Government would not give such powers to the Welsh Assembly under devolution. Revaluation was therefore foisted on Wales by the Government in the 2003 Local Government Bill. Wales was used as an experiment, just like Scotland for the poll tax. The experiment has gone horribly wrong.

Sarah Teather: I will give way in a moment.
	If we look back to 1991 we will discover that, when council tax was introduced the Conservatives believed, as was stated earlier by the Opposition spokesman, it would never need revaluation because of the banding structure. The then Secretary of State for Scotland, Mr. Ian Lang, said:
	The banding system irons out much of the effect of relative changes in property values within an area which, under the rating system, brought regular pressure for revaluation.[Official Report, 12 November 1991; Vol. 198, c. 918.]
	But in 2003, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar changed his party's mind. Responding to the debate on the Local Government Bill, he said:
	We recognise the need periodically to revalue properties for the purpose of council tax . . . We support the revaluation being made on a regular and predictable basis.[Official Report, 7 January 2003; Vol. 397, c. 645.]
	A month later, his colleague the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), a party spokesman on housing, argued for five-yearly revaluations in Committee on the Bill. Then the Bill moved to another place, and Lord Hanningfield, the Conservative spokesman, proposed no revaluations at all. The reasons he gave were interesting. He said:
	council tax is regressive. Its impact on people on a low income is greater than its impact on people on a high income. I accept that as a fact.
	He went on to say:
	The value of property seems . . . to be an unsafe proxy for the ability to pay. [Official Report, House of Lords,17 July 2003; Vol. 651, c. 982.]
	Those are arguments that the Liberal Democrats have been making for nearly 15 years.

Eric Pickles: Will the hon. Lady confirm that on three separate occasions, the Liberal Democrats voted in favour of revaluation, and on those three separate occasions the Conservative party voted against? It is a matter of record.

Sarah Teather: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	Let us go back to 1998 when the Conservatives were casting around for a replacement to the rates. We suggested one: local income tax. Then there was the poll tax, which we also opposed. We argued for a local income tax. Instead we got the council tax, which we opposed. We argued for a local income tax. A theme is developing here. In fact, we have been arguing for a local income tax for more than 20 years. It has been in every Liberal Democrat manifesto since 1983.
	So when council tax revaluation came on the scene in debates on the Local Government Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) remarked:
	They should abolish the Tory council taxthe real reform that the country needs.[Official Report, 7 January 2003; Vol. 397, c. 71.]
	When the Conservatives proposed, in another place, scrapping revaluation, my colleague, Baroness Hamwee, responded succinctly:
	the noble Lord identifies the problem but the solution is entirely wrong. Let us scrap council tax. That is all I need to say.[Official Report, House of Lords, 17 July 2003; Vol. 651, c. 977.]
	The Conservatives have tried to suggest that we have been inconsistent on revaluation, but we have not. It is simply fairly incidental to us. If there were no council tax, there would be no revaluation. Or to put it another wayrevaluation or no revaluation, council tax is a terrible tax that must be scrapped.
	It is worth rehearsing the evidence of council tax unfairness once more, jut to make sure that people have the whole point. It is easy for people to forget the reality for people struggling on low incomes or fixed pensions who find it difficult to pay their bills each month. Many people come to my surgeries each week asking which bill they should pay firsttheir water rates, their rent or their council tax. It is easy to forget what this means to real people's lives.
	Council tax penalises the old and the low-paid. Remember, it was brought in as a replacement for the poll taxthe most regressive system imaginable. It was only in contrast to the poll tax that council tax appeared to have an element of fairness and was accepted by the British people. Nearly 15 years on, it has become painfully apparent that council tax is not a fair tax. That is why there are protests, demonstrations and petitions up and down the country and in this place. That is why pensioners feel the need to go to prison in protest rather than pay their bill. Council tax is Britain's most unfair tax. The Conservatives invented it, so it is hardly surprising that they still think it is good enough. But it is a tax that Labour should be ashamed of. The poorest 10 per cent. of pensioners pay nearly 10 per cent. of their income in council tax, and that is after council tax benefit. Up to 1.8 million pensioners do not claim the benefit that they are entitled to, often because the forms are so baffling and humiliating.

Sarah Teather: No; I think that the House can probably do without that.
	The then shadow Secretary of State for the Environment, Brian Gould, who is no longer a Member of this House said:
	Why are the Government . . . skewing their new proposals so that the richest are protected from paying their fair share? Do not they realise that every pound that the rich do not pay will be added to someone else's billthe bills of precisely the same people who were so hard hit by the poll tax? [Official Report, 23 April 1991; Vol. 189, c. 904.]

Sarah Teather: I am happy to: such people would be taxed on business rates under a second-home system. [Interruption.] We have made the proposal time and again. If the hon. Gentleman wants more detail, he can go to our website, where we published the detail in February this year.
	The questions raised by Brian Gould are still valid, yet the Labour Government, who were elected, as the Prime Minister told us in May 1997
	to champion the cause of the forgotten people,
	decided that council tax did not need reforming after all.
	Labour's record on local government is not, as the Conservatives have claimed, one of confusionit is one of broken promises. What about the promise to re-localise business rates, giving councils financial freedom and an incentive to foster business in their area? Eight years in, and all Labour has managed is the catchily named local authority business growth incentive scheme. Thanks to the delay of the Lyons review, any hope of proper reform has been postponed into the next Parliament.
	I do not think that the spin about extending the Lyons review and tying it in with yet more reforms and proposals will amount to anything very much, because the truth is that local government reform has been kicked into the long grass. That refusal to grasp the nettle of financial reform for local authorities is proof both that new Labour has lost its supposed commitment to social justiceit does not care about the families who struggle week after week to pay their council tax billsand that its new localism is nothing more than a gimmick.
	Freedom and autonomy for councils is only possible with a wholly reformed financial regime. The Government's freedoms and flexibilities agenda is nothing without the one freedom that must precede them allthe freedom for councils to raise and spend their own money. However, the Government see fit to retain a system that cripples councils by making them dependent on central Government for most of the money that they spend, and councils too often have no choice over how much they raise in council tax because of the crude capping system, which Margaret Thatcher introduced, but which this Labour Government operate with great zealearlier this year, we saw that zeal in the House. That means that all the Government's rhetoric about devolution is just hot air.
	The Lyons review is supposed to consider the functions of local government, with the suggestion that more powers and responsibilities might be devolved. Last week, however, we discussed new structures for police services, fire services and health services. By the time that the Lyons review reports, every service that could be placed under local authority control will have been restructured into a new set of quangos. The only thing that will be left for Lyons to do will be to nationalise the education system and tear the very heart out of local government.
	Labour spent 18 years in opposition arguing that local government should be given more power and that local democracy is at the heart of improving public services. All we have now, however, is the freedoms and flexibilities agenda, which everybody knows is about centralising praise and devolving blame.

Sarah Teather: I will discuss that point at the end of my speech, so the hon. Gentleman must listen carefully.
	What would we do differently? We would localise business rates to give councils real financial freedom; we would give councils controlnot some opaque right to be consulted or right to co-ordinate a strategic partnership between key stakeholdersover the services in their area; and we would end Whitehall micro-management, targets, capping and inspections and the centralisation of decision making. At the heart of our local government reforms would be the tax change that we have been talking about for 20 yearslocal income tax.

Alan Whitehead: It is true that council tax as a tax on property does not bear an exact relationship to wealth, but neither does a local income tax, given the way in which it might be collected. On the other hand, a local property tax can define what are the properties in a particular area and collect the funds from them in an easy and straightforward way. The amount of evasion under the poll tax compared with the council tax differs by an enormous order of magnitude.
	If we agree in principle that a property tax might be a way forward in collecting taxes for local government, it is inevitable that we have to revalue its basis from time to time. One cannot, as the Conservatives apparently do, support a property tax without accepting that it must reflect the way in which it is likely to be collected over a period of time. The idea that using bands means that one escapes from revaluation was one of the less well advised of those that were floated when council tax was first introduced.
	What does one do about it? Despite what the Conservatives say, several things need to be recognised about council tax. It builds inflation into council tax demands by settling the amount of money that local government will have from central Government grant before the decision is taken on raising council tax locally, thereby introducing a gearing effect into local government spending in a way that is not structurally necessary. There is potentially a problem of inflation because revaluation means that people jump between bands, although one can get round that by attempting to organise a revenue-neutral rebanding. Perhaps a council tax that is not based on bands but on points is a more sensible way to proceed.
	Business rates are capped at the rate of inflation whereas council tax is not. Over a period of time, that draws the yield from business rates away from the yield from council tax and places a greater burden on domestic council taxpayers.
	It is essential that, if a property tax is to be retained, the breadth of what needs to be done is clearly discussed and understood. Although I have my concerns about the difference between a deferral of revaluation and one that does not take place at all, we must get the detail right in the round, dealing with entitlement to council tax benefits alongside the issue of council tax as such. That is a constructive and responsible way forward for the council tax.
	I am afraid that what the Opposition have offered us is a complete abdication of any interest or responsibility in the reality of how local authorities are funded. To use another far eastern metaphor, they are like members of the Japanese Socialist party in the 1950s, '60s and '70s, who were so convinced that the Japanese Liberal Democrats were going to win that they gave up even having policy conferences because they knew that their policies were never going to be implemented.

Peter Bone: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in the debate, which is of great interest to my constituents. Wellingborough has experienced the largest increasealmost 400 per cent.in council tax since it was introduced, whereas, in the same period, inflation increased by only a fraction of that. Despite that figure of 400 per cent., the Government want to increase the council tax even more through revaluation.
	Incredibly, the Government have wasted 60 million on considering council tax revaluation and, after spending that money, have decided to postpone its introduction. That is typical of them. Their attitude is, Forget spending money on core services like the fire service, the police or nurses. Let's spend it on bureaucrats and consultants. It would not be so bad if they had decided to scrap the revaluation, but they have postponed, not scrapped it. Revaluation will hit the elderly and the vulnerable hardest. How much more money will be wasted on consultants and advisers before proposals are presented to the House? Pensioners are suffering most through the excessive rises in council tax and pensioners would suffer most from revaluation.
	In 2003, Mr. Martin Sterrow, a local pensioner, approached me. He, like many other pensioners in Wellingborough, was fed up with having to fork out year after year for huge increases in council tax while the rise in his state pension was a pittance in comparison. Mr. Sterrow was able to show me that the increase in his council tax was more than that in his state pension.
	Some pensioners found it almost impossible to keep up their council tax payments and others were prepared to go to prison rather than pay it. Mr. Sterrow had never previously been involved in politics but felt so strongly about the issue that he wanted to do all he could to highlight the huge problem that Wellingborough pensioners faced in the amount of council tax that they had to pay.
	For the past four years, I have run the Listening to Wellingborough and Rushden Campaign, which actively seeks the views of local people, listens to their concerns and campaigns for change on their behalf. Before Mr. Sterrow and a group of local pensioners came to see me, I was aware of the big rises in council tax but I did not quite appreciate the extent of the detrimental effect on the lives of the elderly in Wellingborough. They explained to me that they were on fixed incomes and could not therefore keep up with the year-on-year increases in council tax while receiving only a small rise in their state pensions.
	The quality of life of pensioners in Wellingborough was declining year after year. They were furious that the Labour Government had not restored the link between earnings and pensions.

Peter Bone: I am interested in the spin that the hon. Gentleman puts on that. It is clear to me that, if we asked the pensioners of Wellingborough whether they wanted 50 per cent. off their council tax bills, they would be happy. The Government have placed many obstacles in the way of pensioners claiming reliefmany pensioners who should get relief do not receive it. Labour Members also acknowledge that the forms are complicated and the people who deserve the help do not get it.
	Revaluation would mean that our council tax bills hit the roof. Revaluation of properties in England would give local authorities the gift of increasing their base tax and blaming the Government for the resultant increases in council tax. If the Government are trying to claim that council tax revaluation would be broadly neutral and that there would be both winners and losers, they are living in cloud cuckoo land. All council tax payers would lose out from revaluation because it would be an opportunity to increase a stealth tax by the back door.
	If hon. Members do not believe me, let us consider what happened in Wales, where only 8 per cent. went down a band. However, the greater problem is that, for the change to be neutral, the rate of council tax would have to be reduced because so many properties would go up a band. There would therefore be an automatic increase in tax revenues. Does any hon. Member believe that that would happen?
	We need a Government who reduce council tax and introduce proposals to change the way in which local councils are funded centrally. Talking is not good enough. The Government make the excuse that they will not introduce revaluation yet, because it needs to be considered as part of a wider review of how local authorities are funded, but they have been reviewing since 1998. Is not it time for action or are another four years of talking shops and wasted millions in store for the people of England?
	Local councillors often tell me that the Government require local authorities to take on more and more responsibility and more portfolios but without the necessary money from the centre to fund it. Wellingborough council has been consistently underfunded by any objective formula. Perhaps the Government should focus their efforts on how to fund local authorities fairly so that pensioners throughout the country, especially in Wellingborough, do not suffer year after year, as they currently do.
	Council tax is a huge, genuine issue for the most vulnerable in our society. It affects people on low incomes and fixed incomes. It causes massive hardship to those in our communities who can least afford it. Council tax is a regressive tax and hon. Members of all parties acknowledge that and are crying out for the Government to tackle the issue quickly. Council tax revaluation is not the way forward.

Clive Betts: The hon. Gentleman should read his party's motion. Members on his own Front Bench have drawn the distinction between deferral and cancellation, and the Government's position is clearly one of deferral.
	As I have said, I have some reservations about the Government's position. It has already been established that 10 years is about the right period between revaluations. The timetable that had been agreed would have taken it to 15 years, and now we are talking about perhaps 20 years. My concern is that the longer we go on, the greater the scope for differences between the changes in the value of different properties. I can certainly see that happening in my constituency. I also have reservations about carrying out a revaluation at the same time as introducing other potentially significant changes in local government taxation, as that could lead to confusion among the public as to which change had affected which element of their bill. That could be very difficult to disentangle.
	However, the Government are right to lay down that we should establish the precise functions of local governmentI welcome the widening of Sir Michael Lyons's remit in that regardand then agree on an appropriate financial system to fit in with those functions. Local authorities have an important central role to play as the strategic authority for their area, covering a wide range of services. May I suggest that my hon. Friend the Minister has a friendly chat with his colleagues in other Departments to ensure that they are on board with this agenda as well? In regard to the regional government proposals, when it became clear that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister was in the business of devolving and decentralising functions, it was not equally clear that Departments such as the Department for Transport and the Department for Education and Skills were on the same wavelength.
	I want to cite two examples from my constituency. I am anxious to encourage the local collegeit now seems anxious to respondto build a new post-16 vocational centre. However, every secondary school now has the right to develop its own post-16 arrangements. It is difficult to see how we can encourage one educational institution to invest, while there is a risk that another will do precisely the same thing with no overall planning at local authority level, effectively wasting resources and undermining the collective, coherent provision of services.
	Secondly, over the past 10 years, South Yorkshire has lost 30 per cent. of its bus passengers. Local government has no strategic ability to plan and deliver local public transport. I hope that those two issues will be seriously considered by the Lyons review, which should not pertain only to those issues that are directly in the remit of the ODPM; but must also consider the strategic responsibilities of local government and its ability not necessarily to deliver but to co-ordinate the delivery of services on the ground in a constructive and proper manner.

Clive Betts: I still argue that those people have a store of wealth in their house. They have a property, and it is reasonable to tax it. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was arguing for the complete abolition of property tax. I am arguing that the principle of a property tax is fair. The key question is how it is implemented.
	I would argue strongly that we have to find a way for local government to become more accountable and responsible for raising its own revenue. The key to that will be to bring the business rate back into the orbit of local authority responsibility. It is wrong that increases in business rates have been restricted to the annual inflation rate. That has inevitably resulted in a greater percentage of the money for local services having to be raised from council tax payers than from business rate payers. Business rates should be brought back, and if there has to be a restrictionas there was on the domestic rates and business rates before the poll tax was introducedthe two should be linked. It is possible to link increases in council tax with increases in business rates so that local authorities do not put the entire burden on business rate payers. That would also mean that any increases in revenue that were needed locally would be spread across a wider base, which would reduce the problem of gearing. That would be one significant reform that could come out of this process.
	I know that there are differences between the incomes of people in different groups, but broadly speaking, council tax is not regressive; it is usually neutral. However, it is regressive if we compare the amount that people pay with the value of their property. If we compare the 40,000 value of a property at the top of band A with the 320,000 value of a property at the bottom of band H, the difference is about eight-fold. Yet the council tax payable on the band H property is only three times that paid on the band A property, so the burden is greater on people at the bottom end of the scale. When we come to examine council tax seriously, we need to look at how the burden is spread across the bands, and probably at the bands themselves. Perhaps we shall need another band A, and perhaps a splitting of the top band. Those are all possible ways in which we can more fairly relate what people pay to the actual value of their property.
	We should also consider the proposal that pensioners who do not want to give up their house, but who are struggling because they are on a fixed incomeI take the point made by the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone)should be able to defer payment of their council tax until they sell their property. I have no problem with that at all. The proposal has been referred to as a death tax, but that is frankly silly. There would be no compulsion on people to defer payment, and it would have to be done in a way that did not impose a penalty on other council tax payers. But that is a possibility, and it could deal with the problem of pensioners being forced to sell their home.
	I also accept some of the criticisms of council tax benefit. The reality is that council tax benefit is taken up fairly well by people in social rented housing. Only about 50 per cent. of owner-occupiers who are eligible take it up, however. That is a real challenge. Certainly, we must do more in terms of publicity, but perhaps we should consider the whole issue of council tax benefit and its structure to see whether we can find a better way to encourage people to take it up. Certainly, making the tax more progressive would be helpful and would deal with a particular group of people who are currently hard-hit by not taking up their benefits.
	The Local Government Information Unit has produced an interesting pamphlet, which I hope that Ministers will read. It identifies another problem, which relates to the point made by Liberal Democrats that some people will be better off with local income tax. The reason that some working families on relatively low incomes are better off under a local income tax is that people start paying income tax at a higher earning level than that at which they start paying council tax, which means that they start losing council tax benefit. If we could bring into line the points at which people pay income tax and council tax, we could deal with another element of unfairness in the current council tax system in terms of how it impacts on low earners who are struggling to make their way and to get a better income than if they simply relied on benefits.
	I hope that Sir Michael Lyons considers seriously a number of proposals, although I have some reservations about the deferral of the revaluation process. I support the widening of Sir Michael's remit, however, and I hope that we retain a property tax but with significant reforms to make it fairer still.

Brian Binley: In May 1997, I was elected to Northamptonshire county council, and exactly one year later was handed the shadow finance portfolio and tasked with preparing the Conservative group for county government. On that selfsame day, our current Prime Minister was given the immediate task of running our country. There is a bit of a difference between those two tasks, but I was allowed to experience at first hand the impact that the newly elected Government would have on the quality of local government in my county and on the welfare of its citizens. I was especially well placed to judge that impact from a financial perspective.
	I well remember some of the promises concerning local government that were made in the Labour party's manifesto prior to that election. I want to remind the House of a few of them, not least because the Minister referred to them.
	First, the manifesto promised that local government would be less constrained by central Government. How I wish that that promise had been kept. Sadly, however, through ring-fencing, matched funding and the iniquitous pressures exerted by quangos and the comprehensive performance assessment, it was not.
	Secondly, the manifesto promised that there were sound democratic reasons why, in principle, the business rate should be set locally. I am rather pleased that the Government have not carried out that pledge, although I note that they are still talking of doing so after eight long years. It is another example, however, of not following through on a promise.
	Thirdly, the manifesto stated that Labour was committed to a fair distribution of Government grants. The Minister for Local Government should tell that to the people of Northampton boroughI notice that he has the information about Northamptonshire county council, and I look forward to hearing it from himwho, three years ago, received a 32.9 per cent. increase when the council was under Labour control, and a 5.8 per cent. increase in the following year when still under Labour control, while last year the grant dropped to just 0.9 per cent. after Labour had lost control. That is hardly an example of fair distribution, bearing in mind the impact of year-on-year revenue expenditure on services.
	Finally, the manifesto stated that councils should not be forced to put their services out to tender but will be required to obtain best value. Almost everybody in local government, however, will have horror stories to tell of the best value regimeas I am sure you will have heard, Madam Deputy Speakerof the money it wasted, and the time and effort that it cost to so little avail. In truth, we hardly hear of it now because of that waste, but it was a problem.
	What one word might we choose to sum up Labour's performance with regard to local government, and especially local government finances? In my part of the world, that word would be uncertainty, and I get the impression that that word is used quite a lot throughout the country. Undoubtedly, there is sizeable uncertainty in local government, and this Government need to recognise that and the impact that it creates. Any businessman will tell us that it is one of the most damaging of all conditions to deal with.
	How has this uncertainty arisen? Many in the House will know of the Government's initially stated desire to review local government funding, which they pursued with the balance of funding review starting in January 2003. The need for a thoroughgoing review of local government finance and the necessity of creating more equitable local collection vehicles is well rehearsed. Recent events have especially drawn our attention to the seeming unfairness of the current system for certain sections of our communitywe have already mentioned our state pensioners, many of whom have seen up to 40 per cent. of their basic pension increases clawed back by council tax increases over the past eight years. The decision to supersede that review with the Lyons review, which was programmed to report at the end of 2005 but was then extended further by widening the terms of reference to include the functions of local government and its future role, suggested a wish to delay and prevaricate rather than to act and progress.

Brian Binley: The Minister will be taking up my time. Will he be kind enough to wait, as he will have another chance to speak?
	Of course the Government can make such a statement by setting the settlement against overall inflation of 2.7 per cent., but that is a confidence trick, which looks foolish when measured against public sector inflation well in excess of 45 per cent. during the eight years that this Government have been in power. That is the inflation figure that local government must deal with, and it is in many respects created by the Government themselves. I wish that the Government would show some humility in that regard.
	When the Government came to office, 20.5 per cent. of local government revenue spending was financed by council tax. That has now risen to 25.3 per cent., which tells the real story much more effectively. No wonder local government is uncertain when national Government give such false and misleading information.
	I could go on to speak about the burdens placed on local government. I could go on to describe how they affect core services, and how we are constantly top-slicing. There is no time for me to do that, however. Instead, let me return to the issue of uncertainty: a damaging cancer at the heart of local government, which is undermining confidence and undermining belief in the Government's wish to see successful local government.
	Local government believes that more importance is being ascribed to quangos, unelected bodies and officer-led partnerships than to local government itself. The Minister smiles. I believe in local democracy and I hope he does as well, but his actions suggest that that is not the case. Certainly, the Government's actions suggest that it is not the case.
	Let me ask again what the Government can do to eradicate the uncertainty, and restore the confidence that I believe is vital to our local democracy and our local democratic structures. They should start by reviewing local tax-collecting vehicles quickly, although the setback to the Lyons review neither helps the process nor inspires us with confidence. They should either get on with the revaluation or scrap it altogether. I understand some of the arguments in favour of regular revaluations, and the fact that the next revaluation may be delayed until the next Parliament is extremely worrying. I understand that one of the Minister's colleagues made that point as well.
	The Government can help us by providing a fair revenue support grant that recognises the true cost of public-sector inflation. We do not want spurious arguments that tell us that we have more money than we have when we are forced to accept public-sector inflation that is well above the level of general inflation. The Government can also help us by doing what they say they will do: all too often they have suggested that they will do something, and then abandoned the plans that they have outlined to local government. Finally, they can restore to local government the power and freedom to get on with the job that it was established to do.
	There is nothing more efficient or effective within the confines of national Government than in local government. The only difference is that national Government think they know best, while local government know that they do not. It is time to trust local democracy. I just wonder whether the Government have the courage to face up to that challenge.

Nick Raynsford: No, I will not. The hon. Member for Brent, East has already had a good opportunity and made a mess of it. She should hear a few facts. There is a problem with take-up of council tax benefit. Had she put the case for those who do not receive it, I would have had some sympathy with her; but she advanced the extraordinary proposition that the circumstances she described applied to the poorest pensioners after their receipt of benefit. I am sorry, but that is economically illiterate.
	The second example of economic illiteracy was the response to the challenge issued by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe, who asked how a PAYE-based system of local income tax would deal with those outside the PAYE system. The hon. Member for Brent, East said that they would be subject to a different form of taxation, based to some extent on business rates. That would of course mean every property in the country having to be valued; yet the hon. Lady persisted in her claim that ending property valuations would save 300 million. That is typical of the Liberal Democrats. They do not do their sums, or their sums do not add up, and no one believes that a local income tax would generate the benefits that they claim for it.
	Having said that, I should add that I have serious reservations about the Government's wish to postpone revaluation. Revaluation is an essential component of any system based on property values, as has been pointed out by my hon. Friends this afternoon and also by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors in its excellent briefing paper.
	The year 1991, the current basis for valuation, is now 14 years behind us, and it is increasingly unreal to base valuations on 1991 values. In my constituency, areas that were derelict industrial wastelands in 1991

Nick Raynsford: I am in the middle of a rather important point. If the hon. Gentleman listens, he may learn something.
	As I was saying, an area in my constituency that was an industrial wasteland with no properties is being regenerated very effectively as a result of Government policies, and there are many new properties there. To every new home that is being built, however, a notional 1991 value must be applied for council tax purposes. I think most people would accept that that is unrealistic.

Nick Raynsford: If the hon. Gentleman bears wit me, he will understand that although stamp duty is an interesting subject for a debate in which we could engage on another occasion, it is not relevant to this debate.
	I return to a point on which I challenged the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar. When a property changes hands, it is revalued. People who live in a property whose value has risen or fallen significantly in relation to the average since 1991 will experience the consequences when they sell it, but someone living next door whose house has not been sold will not be affected in the same way. There will be increasing anomalies and inconsistencies between properties, which is another sound reason why we cannot have a valuation system without periodic revaluations. The anomalies become worse. The longer the situation continues, the more problematic it becomes, and the more difficult changing it becomes. That is why it is essential that there be arrangements for revaluation.
	The Government's case for postponement of revaluation is related to the Lyons review, and I welcome the wider remit for that inquiry. My hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government rightly highlighted the benefit of a wider look at this issue, but I fail to see why revaluation should be postponed. If council tax is to continue as an important and not necessarily the only element in a framework for local government finance, it will not provide a fair basis for funding unless it is subject to revaluation.
	Sir Michael has made clear his view that a one-year postponement would have been acceptableI understand, however, that he did not recommend itbut he has also clearly expressed reservations about the indefinite postponement proposed by the Government. Although such a postponement might be acceptable, pending the completion of the Lyons inquiry and the Government's assessment of it, I see no basis whatever for removing the obligation in the legislation for a review thereafter, within a minimum of 10 years. Regular, periodic reviews are essential in order to keep council tax valuations up to date, and to avoid excessive turbulence if the revaluation is delayed unreasonablya point made forcefully by the RICS in its submission.

Nick Raynsford: No. I have given way already and I am not doing so again. We are time limited, as the hon. Gentleman will understand.
	The decision taken in Wales was that there should be an increase in yield. It is perfectly proper for such a decision to be taken within a devolved framework, but it is not a decision to be taken in England. Indeed, the Government have been absolutely consistent in saying that there should be no increase in yield in England as a result of revaluationa point also endorsed by the RICS.
	So in England, it is likely not that there would be a large number of losers and very few gainers, but that there would be broad parity between losers and gainers as a result of a revaluation, with no increase in yield. That of course meansI ask Opposition Members to listen to this pointthat many people will continue to pay more council tax than they should post-2007, because they will remain in bands that are higher than they should be in terms of current values. If we are talking about justice and fairness, it is important not to be opportunistic in picking out single examples; rather, we must look seriously at the pattern across the country of current liabilities for council tax, and consider how that would be changed by any particular form of revaluation. Value judgments are made in the course of a revaluation, and how it is done is clearly important to the outcome.
	So I put it to my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government that the House and I would find it helpful to have the benefit of the evidence that Ministers examined concerning the gains and losses that are likely to apply to individual households under different revaluation scenarios. The hon. Member for Brent, East quoted my hon. Friend as saying in a meeting with SIGOMA that there were just over 2 million losers. The Halifax, however, estimates that there might be more gainers than losers under revaluation. That certainly implies that there must be at least 2.2 million peopleperhaps morewho would have gained from revaluation, had it taken place.
	The House is owed a detailed statement setting out the full implications of postponement. I therefore hope that my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government will be willing to publish the evidence that he and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Communities and Local Government saw before they decided to postpone revaluation. As my hon. Friend acknowledged, the change of policy that he outlined will require new legislation. We deserve to have full information on the impact and implications of the changes when this House considers that legislation.
	Local government provides a range of absolutely vital services, and it is important that it have a finance system that underpins its work and enables it to get on with its job effectively. The Lyons inquiry is rightly looking at a long-term, more sustainable basis for local government finance, and we should give that inquiry full support. We should encourage Sir Michael to come forward with practical and, where appropriate, radical proposals, and I hope that the House will have a good opportunity to debate them in the reasonably near future. It is in all our interests to have a more sound, more sustainable basis for the long-term future of local government funding.

Bill Wiggin: I want to take this opportunity to share with the House the impact that council tax revaluation has already had on Wales. That impact unquestionably serves as a warning to the people of England of what will occur if council tax revaluation goes ahead here. Wales was ripped off, tucked up and had over. That will happen here and we will face the same hardships as our Welsh brethren if we are not very careful. For the benefit of those in the House who are unfamiliar with this tale of Labour greed and incompetence, I will explain why the council tax revaluation has failed in Wales and consequently left hundreds of thousands of hard-working home owners greatly out of pocket.
	During the past eight years and even before taking into account the impact of revaluation in this financial year, council tax has risen by an average of 426 per householda whopping 86 per cent. Areas such as Blaenau Gwent have faced increases of 546, which is 12 times the rate of inflation. Monmouthshire has suffered council tax rises of 514, which equates to a 128 per cent. increase since 1997, or 13 times the rate of inflation. In Swansea, council tax has increased by 84 per cent.; in Cardiff it is up by 80 per cent. Pembrokeshire has experienced the lowest increasejust 57 per cent.!but that is little consolation to Pembrokeshire home owners, who still have to find an extra 256.
	The move towards revaluation began in September 2000, when the National Assembly for Wales began its consultation on possible changes to local government finance in Wales. That consultation was superseded by the introduction of the Local Government Act 2003. As the House is aware, the outcome was that all homes in Wales were assessed with a view to being rebanded. At the time, the Opposition opposed the measure, and we continue to believe that this mistake has left Welsh home owners with the burden of more taxation than is either appropriate or necessary.

Desmond Swayne: That poses the question of what would have been a bad policy development, if that was a good one. Surely the answer to the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) is that it provides no comfort whatever to someone who has been shifted up a couple of bands to know that a band D property in England would have been even more expensive. That is the point; they have been ripped off big time.

David Howarth: I shall address some of the points made in the debate and then make one point of my own. When the Minister winds up, I hope that he will take up a point that the Minister of State mentioned when he opened the debate, which was of great interest to those of us who spent a long time in local government. He implied that the financial settlement for local government this year is likely to be ungenerous, especially outside education. The figure of 1.5 per cent. has been bandied around, and that would cause extreme difficulties, especially for district councils, and lead to severe reductions in services.
	The right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) mentioned pensioners and council tax benefits. Large numbers of pensioners do not receive council tax benefits, for two reasons. First, as the right hon. Gentleman said, many do not claim the benefit in the first place. Secondly, even quite modest savings take pensioners above the capital limit. Both factors put together mean that many pensioners do not receive council tax benefits, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather) said.
	The right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich and the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) made the point about local income tax and foreign nationals, but that point is easily answered. A foreign national is either resident for income tax purposes or not. If resident for income tax purposes, a foreign national will pay local income tax. For those not resident for income tax purposes, we will introduce a second home tax based on land value. That will not require all properties in the country to be valuedonly those used as second homes.

David Howarth: I repeat that the cost will depend on the band of house that people already occupy. People who live together in large houses are, by definition, in high band houses, so the comparison with the average house is not valid.
	I turn to my single main point. Contrary to what the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich said, this debate is not only about revaluation. It is also about the Lyons review. As several hon. Members have said, both the motion and the amendment mention the important point about asking the Lyons review to consider the strategic role and accountability of local government, so that local government finance can be reviewed in the context of the functions of local government. One might point out that the Government should have realised from the beginning that the options for local government finance cannot be understood without understanding and making choices about local government function. The obvious question is why the Government have taken two and a half yearssince the beginning of the balance of funding reviewto realise that obvious fact.
	There is a more fundamental and important point. The functions, role and accountability of local government are not a matter for expert committees; they are political questions that the Government must make up their mind about rather than asking somebody else. The question for the Government and for the Labour party is: what should be the proper relationship between central and local government?
	There are three important aspects of thatthree central questions that the Government need to sort out. First, do the Government believe in pluralism? Do they believe that local government should be able to follow its own political objectives and not merely be an agent of national Government? More profoundly, do they believe that local government is valuable because it can act as a check and a balance on central powerthat it is a way of dispersing power in society? There is an historical problem for both parties. For the Conservatives, there is the problem of the Greater London council, which they abolished precisely because it provided an alternative political base and political opposition to the Government. Many people disagreed with what Mr. Livingstone was doing with the GLC at the timemany still dobut supported his campaign to maintain the existence of the council because it provided an alternative centre of political power.
	For the Labour party, the equivalent problem was the Militant Tendency in Liverpool. There was a great speech by Mr. Kinnock at the Blackpool conference

David Howarth: It still needs to be in the Lyons remit, but the Government should make some political judgments before the report to give Lyons more direction.
	To return to my point about experiment and variety, schools offer an example. Policies such as school choice work in densely populated urban areas with good public transport systemsat least, they are good from the point of view of people in the rest of the country. Those policies would not necessarily work in an area such as rural Norfolk, where the population is widely dispersed and school choice is limited due to transport difficulties. The Government and the Labour party must wean themselves off easy headlines such as, Minister steps in to solve problem or Minister takes charge. It is easy to obtain such headlines, but the long-term consequence of seeking them is to undermine the ability of local government to experiment and work out solutions for its area.
	The third fundamental question for the Government is whether they believe that local government provides a place where there can be democratic accountability and democratic participation. Every power of national Governmentto appoint people, to control total budgets and to direct their budgetsshould also be reviewed, to consider whether those powers could be better used and allocated locally, especially to local government. So the Government need to work out their own political direction first and to understand local government in terms of pluralism, experimentation and democratic accountability. If they get that done, they can move on to the Lyons report. The Liberal Democrats know where we stand on all those questions; we do not need an expert to tell us. I just hope that the Government work out their own position sooner than the next election.

Angela Watkinson: The hon. Gentleman will know that, in politics, we never say never, but our policy is to cancel the revaluation. If he will bear with me for a moment, he will learn more of our policy.
	The Minister in his opening remarks apologised for making the announcement in the recess, but we were refused an urgent question when this Parliament began and he could have made a statement. The Government are being called to account today only because there is an Opposition debate on the subject.
	The Lyons report refers to the complexity of local government funding, the strategic and expanding role and functions of local government, devolution, decentralisation and more accountability. We now have communities that are far more diverse, with much higher expectations of what their councils can provide for them. Local government needs to foster partnerships with the local community, the police, health authorities and all the other statutory bodies and the private sector in local area agreements. That will happen by 2007. There are already several highly successful strategic partnerships, and my council of Havering has the successful Havering strategic partnership. All its partners have an enormous amount of good will and wish to contribute in whatever way they can to try to improve services for the benefit of local people.
	My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), who is not in the Chamber, referred to the need for the health service and educational services to work together to help special needs children. It is difficult to meet the growing needs of the ever-increasing numbers of children with special educational needs, many of which arise from medical conditions. Speech therapy, especially, has been under-provided for many decades. I examined the matter a year or so ago to determine how many colleges provided courses for speech therapists, whether those courses were fully attended and whether there was an unusually high drop-out rate. I did not find any problems with the training, but there is no tracking of what happens to qualified speech therapists after they have finished their courses. Where do they go? They do not go into educationcertainly not the state sectoror the national health service, so where all the qualified speech therapists go is a mystery. Overcoming such a problem is an example of the way in which councils, health services and other partners could work together.
	The Minister said that a process of revaluing to align property values with council tax was fair, but how often would properties have to be revalued to make the system continuously fair? What will happen if property values flatline for several years, as they have in Westminster? How would local government funding be adjusted to take account of a fall in property prices?
	The Minister blamed councils for high council tax, which gave the impression that councils have the freedom to set their council tax at a level of their choice. However, we all know that central Government funding comes with many stringsor statutory dutiesattached and with so much ring-fencing that only a small proportion of councils' funding represents disposable income. Their freedom to set their budgets is thus severely restricted. They have of course received extra money, but the cost of their additional statutory duties, which are unfunded, has greatly outstripped that increase.
	Children's services, especially, have been affected enormously. For example, my local authority has somehow to find extra money when families with children with complex and costly needs move to it because that is its statutory duty. Councils thus have little leeway to provide additional services. Services such as Streetcare get squeezed because of the demands of statutory services.

Jim Fitzpatrick: My hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government opened his speech by saying that he was genuinely excited at the prospect of today's debate. Some of our colleagues suggested that perhaps he should get out more, but I know what he meant. The tone and the content of the debate prove that this has been a useful opportunity.
	Before I respond to specific issues raised by hon. Members, I feel obliged to emphasise what my hon. Friend said about council tax. He stressed three aspects that I wish to address: how the Government are already helping many people, not least pensioners, with their council tax bills; how we are taking firm action to ensure that council tax levels stay low; and how we are taking forward reform of the system through the inquiry by Sir Michael Lyons. Our aim is to ensure that high-quality services can be funded in a way that is both fair and sustainable in the long term.
	First, let me remind the House how much the Government are already doing to help people to pay their council tax bills. Help with those bills is available to those who are least well off through council tax benefitan important part of the picture. In 200506, of the total council tax requirement of 21.3 billion, about 3 billion, or 14 per cent., is being met through council tax benefit. The operation of the council tax benefit scheme is the responsibility of my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department for Work and Pensions; however, both they and we at the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister are concerned that many people, especially pensioners, are not taking up their entitlement. Help is being offered to pensioners to try to resolve that. The focus in the short term is, rightly, on getting better take-up of council tax benefit, but for the longer term the DWP aims to make the council tax benefit system as automatic as possible.
	In addition to council tax benefit, the Government are giving pensioners extra money specifically to help with council tax bills. We gave 100 to households with someone aged 70 or over in 200405, and in 200506, households with someone aged over 65 will receive 200unless, of course, they are already entitled to a 100 per cent. rebate. We are giving a lot of additional help to pensioners generally, spending almost 11 billion more on pensioners in 200506 than in 1997 as a result of measures introduced since then. The help we are giving includes the 200 winter fuel payment for everyone aged over 60, which benefits more than 11 million pensioners; there will be free local area off-peak bus travel for pensioners from April 2006; television licences are free for anyone aged over 75, which benefits more than 4 million people; value added tax on fuel has been reduced from 8 per cent. to 5 per cent.; the over-60s receive free eye tests; and women aged 50 to 70 receive free breast screening. There have been record increases in the basic state pension, and pension credit, which guarantees at least 109 a week for single pensioners and 167 a week for couples from April this year, is set to rise in line with average earnings until 2008.
	Secondly, we are working hard to keep council tax down. We delivered another good settlement for local government in 200506one that ensures that councils can provide a high level of service. We have provided an extra 3.5 billion6.3 per cent. more than in 200405. In total, local government has had a 33 per cent. real-terms increase in funding since 1997.
	Thirdly, we are working to reform the system. The Government acknowledge that the current system is not perfect. As we said in response to the balance of funding review, our position is that council tax should be retained, but reformed. Sir Michael Lyons is already examining how the council tax system might be reformed and he is aware of the issues that have been raised by pensioner groups and individual pensioners. It is, however, entirely right that before giving us his recommendations on council tax, he take a step back to consider the current and emerging strategic role of local government in the context of national and local priorities for local services. Any proposals for reform of the funding system should be set firmly and explicitly in the wider context of a clear shared understanding of the role of local government and of councils' accountability to service users, residents and taxpayers.
	Turning to the debate itself, the hon. Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather), the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, has an amazing talent for causing outrage among Conservative Members, almost regardless of what she says. However, she appeased them somewhat by announcing that she has persuaded her colleagues to vote with the Conservative party today. She announced that the poorest pensioners must pay 10 per cent. of their income as council tax. My right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) pointed out that that was inaccurate, and it was not the case. The hon. Lady said that a local income tax would be simpler to operate, but the balance of funding review chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich concluded that local income tax should be introduced only as a supplement to council tax to shift the balance of funding. We have therefore asked Sir Michael Lyons to look into a supplementary local income tax as part of his inquiry into local government funding. The balance of funding report flagged up the fact that considerable further work would be required to address substantial technical and administrative issues and costs associated with local income tax as well as the impact on individuals and employers before firm conclusions could be reached on its feasibility or desirability.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) skilfully outlined the weakness of the position adopted by the official Opposition, and made some astute points, a number of which will be taken into consideration by Sir Michael Lyons. The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) told us about his listening campaign, but he clearly did not listen to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts), which he curtly dismissed as spin rather than a point of information. However, I acknowledge the genuine appeal that he made on behalf of local government. His suggestion that revaluation could provide a vehicle for local authorities to push up council tax was countered by my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, who outlined the capping powers that the Government have at their disposal and which they have used, and will use again in the event that councils breach expected limits.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe challenged the fairness of the Liberal Democrats' flagship policy, outlined its weaknesses and made a number of interesting and thoughtful points. My hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government has read the Local Government Information Unit pamphlet, and the key question of the lower income threshold raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe is being examined by Sir Michael Lyons. In his inimitable style, the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Binley) challenged the Government to respond to concerns about his local council tax rates. I am sorry, but we do not recognise the figure that he cited of 0.9 per cent. If he writes to me, we can examine what Northampton received, whether at the level of the shire, the district or Northampton, South itself. He sought an expression of humility from the Government. While there is genuine humility on the part of the Government its manifestation is not always apparent and it is not always reported.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich spoke, as ever, with the authority that becomes someone with his experience. I acknowledge his strong feelings on the issue and his disagreement with the Government's position although, naturally, that is disappointing. The hon. Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin) took us back to Wales. If he will forgive me, I will not go there as time is against me and Welsh issues were fully aired at the beginning of our debate in a series of interventions. I am not sure if he deliberately used the word rebranding as opposed to rebanding, but I understood his point.
	The hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) delivered his own winding-up speech, the point of which was entirely valid. There are political choices to be made and we will have to make them, but after we have taken advice.
	In conclusion, today's debate has been a good opportunity for the Government to state their position. There will be further opportunities when the House debates the Council Tax (New Valuation Lists for England) Bill in due course. The future of local government is crucial for the future well-being of the country and the Government are determined to create a strong and sustainable role for it. We are convinced that we have the right approach for the reform of local government funding.
	We need a clear and complete picture of what we want from local government. Only then can we tackle the question of how it should be funded. We are confident that Sir Michael Lyons's extended work will provide an opportunity for fundamental and lasting reform. I invite the House to give him its full support in his endeavour, to vote to oppose the motion tabled by the Opposition and to support the amendment in my name and that of my right hon. and hon. Friends.

Andrew Lansley: I beg to move,
	That this House expresses its deep appreciation of the response of the emergency services and Transport for London to the terrorist outrages of 7th and 21st July 2005; urges heightened efforts to ensure that preparedness for emergencies is comprehensively pursued; believes that the appointment of a Minister for Homeland Security would contribute to effective co-ordination within government; calls for increased efforts in communicating with the public in respect of major threats, including both terrorist attacks and an influenza pandemic; regrets delays in the publication of an influenza pandemic contingency plan and the procurement of anti-viral drugs and disposable medical products; is concerned at the lack of public information and resulting confusion; and urges that pandemic influenza preparedness be achieved urgently, with effective communication to the NHS and public of the nature of the threat and planned responses.
	This debate has three purposes: first, to give the House its first opportunity since 7 July to consider the implications of that terrorist attack on our contingency plans and preparedness; secondly, to put to the Government the case for further co-ordination and communication measures designed to increase our preparedness; and thirdly, to focus in detail on our contingency planning and current measures to combat the threat of an avian flu pandemic.
	The House will be aware that there are a wide range of emergencies in response to which the Government are seeking to build resilience under the capabilities programme. Some of those concern natural disasters. As a vice-chair of the all-party group on flood prevention and a representative of a constituency affected by flooding in October 2001, I am only too aware of our developing plan for flood defence. There is an increasingly well-defined population who, all credit to them, actively seek information and means of protecting themselves. The Environment Agency, which, as I know from personal experience, learned some bitter lessons about flaws in its alert system in 2001, is introducing remodelling of the flood risk patterns to increase the advance warning that might be given. That is a good example of ways in which emergency preparedness can learn from past deficiencies.
	Extremes of weather present other threats. The heat wave in France in the summer of 2003 caused 5,000 excess deaths. During winter in this country, as things stand at the moment, we have more than 20,000 excess deathstwice the relative number in Germany. With the Met Office warning of the risk of severe cold weather this winter, now is the time for Government, local authorities, the NHS and housing associations to act, and for families to consider how they and their friends and neighbours are looked after.

Steve Webb: I am following with interest the hon. Gentleman's argument for a Minister for homeland security. I presume that his proposal is for a Minister of Cabinet rank. Will he clarify whether that Minister would have their own Department, or whether they would be a stand-alone Minister with perhaps just a secretary? What is the scope of his proposal?

Andrew Lansley: My proposal is for a senior Minister, but not necessarily one of Cabinet rank. They could indeed have their own Department within the Cabinet Office. As someone who has worked in the Cabinet Office, I am familiar with the way in which it can support a Minister in that way. The Minister would have to be someone with sufficient authorityin this case, that authority would be derived from the Prime Ministerto implement the necessary co-ordination and linkages across the services that were required.
	We all have to challenge ourselves constantly in regard to these issues. For example, in respect of 7 July, at the same time as we express our deepest thanks to the emergency services, we must look at what happened and ask how compatible the communications systems were. What risks for failures of communication were disclosed by those events? Why is breathing apparatus not compatible between the emergency services? Why were there not enough stretchers pre-positioned at King's Cross, which is a prime terrorist target? We have to look at such issues. The present combination of natural disasters, threatening pandemics and terrorist threats means that the risks with which we are dealing are many, real and, frankly, increasing. Our response must be proportionately thorough.
	When my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) winds up this debate, he will have the opportunity to respond to questions and to amplify on these issues. However, I want now to take this opportunity to deal with the specific threat of an avian flu pandemic. I shall not speak about seasonal flu, although the EU Health Commissioner, Mr. Kyprianou, might have unhelpfully confused the public last week into believing that the seasonal flu jab offered some protection against a future flu pandemic. There are good reasons, of course, for at-risk groups to get their seasonal flu jabs, and I wrote to the Secretary of State for Health on 5 October about delays in the availability of vaccines. I am afraid that she has not replied. It was denied on Monday that there were any such problems, so I should be grateful if the Minister would procure a reply for me on the matter, and perhaps even respond today.
	The issue concerns an emergency: lack of preparedness for an avian flu pandemic. The House will be aware of the scale of the threat. On Sunday, the chief medical officer referred to the planning assumption of 50,000 excess deaths, based on an infection rate of one quarter of the population, assuming a mortality rate of 0.37 per cent. A range of mortality rates up to 2.5 per cent. have been considered. We simply do not know what the virulence of a flu virus that is readily transmissible between humans will be. The worst case scenario implies as many deaths in the 15 weeks of the first wave of a pandemic as would normally occur over a whole year.
	We know that the H5N1 strain present in bird populations is highly virulent, with 117 cases contracted by humans who were in intimate contact with birds, of whom 60 died. We have no evidence of sustained transmission between humans. A genetic mutation leading to human transmission can be expected substantially to reduce the virus's virulence and the mortality rate among humans affected. We must assume, however, that we are dealing with a dangerous virus, in respect of which we have virtually no natural immunity in the population. We do not know when a virus capable of human-to-human transmission will occur, and given the increasing prevalence among large bird populations in south-east Asia, it must be far more likely that such a mutation will occur there, and the time at which it will occur must be approaching. As the World Health Organisation says, the question is not if, but when.
	I do not now doubt the Government's awareness of the threat. The publication today of an updated contingency plan by the chief medical officer shows that the key issues are identified. Let me be clear, however: the threat has been evident for a long time. In June 2004, I pressed the Government to produce a contingency plan and prepare a stockpile of antiviral drugs. The French Government, for example, published their plan and procured 13 million courses of Tamiflu on 13 October last year. For a long time, Ministers were complacent. The multi-phase contingency plan was published shortly before the 1997 electionI emphasise that because the Secretary of State said that the Government had published a plan in 1997, but it was the Conservative Government who did soand it was not updated until March this year. Then, an order was placed for antivirals. The stockpile will not be complete until September 2006. On Monday, I called for an advance purchase order for pandemic flu vaccine. Today, the Government responded.
	I should not have to do thisthe Opposition should not have to come to the Dispatch Box to call for action by the Government and for such measures to be taken. It is all very well the chief medical officer saying, on around 14 October, Not this yearI am not here to criticise the CMO, as I think that he does a fantastic job and Ministers are responsible. The issue is that we cannot exclude the risk of pandemic flu next year and we are not yet ready.
	In comparison with previous pandemics, we could do very well: we have the best science in the world, an NHS that has shown itself able to respond to emergencies, and new antiviral and vaccine technologies. All those resources, however, must be brought into action well in advance if we are to obtain the full benefits. As we shall see, however, we do not have the antiviral stockpile that is necessary, nor the millions of face masks and gloves needed. Research into vaccines, and priming the vaccine manufacturing capability, has not happened. Contingency plans, including today's, do not show how the NHS would cope with the tripling of demand for critical care beds that would result. The public and NHS professionals are confused and uncertain about how we would cope. All those things must change.
	The United Kingdom Government's plans may be better than those of many other countries. Indeed, many countries have no plans. They have been slow off the mark, however, and the delivery of key elements has not even begun in some cases. Our planning should not be among the best in the world; it should be the best in the world, and that is what we will press for.
	I am grateful for the presence of the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw). I want to say three things about avian flu in the bird population. First, we think it is time to warn free-range poultry keepers of the restrictions that may be placed on them, although not necessarily now, if there is evidence of high pathogenic avian influenza entering the United Kingdom in migratory birds. They need to know the plans for containment and how they can be helped to prepare for it now.
	Secondly, poultry workers and those involved with game birds need information about what to look for and the personal protection measures for which they may be responsible in due course. Thirdly, there is the need to monitor wild birds. The Government and, indeed, scientists are not yet clear about the manner in which avian influenza is being transmitted among bird populations as a result of migration. It is all the more important in the game-shooting season for game birds to be sampled to establish whether the virus is present, and in what part of the wild bird population it occurs.
	There is an important difference, which is not yet well understood, between avian flu in the bird population and pandemic flu in the human population. We know that there are serious major risks of transfer from the bird population by means of genetic mutation. Recent evidence from modelling in both this country and the United States suggested that the use of antiviral drugs and other public health measures where an outbreak of pandemic flu first occurredin south-east Asia, for instancecould achieve significant progress in containing the outbreak at the outset, and could give everyone, worldwide, a breathing space in which to complete preparations for, say, a vaccine. Can the Minister tell us what specific measures our Government have taken to ensure that some of our resources and those of other countries in the developed world can be used to support an aggressive containment strategy?
	We know that we do not yet have a stockpile of antiviral drugs, but we should ask how such a stockpile would be used. The pandemic flu contingency plan tells us that the stockpile should be the size recommended for treating the infected populationroughly enough for a quarter of the UK population to be treated. On page 150, the plan states
	It should be emphasised that those national stockpiles provide no allowance for prophylaxis to protect key workers or maintain business continuity.
	Earlier parts of the plan, however, make clear that part of the intention is to use antiviral drugs for prophylaxis for health-care workers in the initial stages of an outbreak, and post-exposure prophylaxis for people in confined communities such as nursing homes.
	A good question, to which we increasingly need an answer, if there is one, is whether post-exposure prophylaxisnot for the whole population, as that would not be cost-effective, but in the event of initial outbreaks in populations, and perhaps in families when one family member has contracted the diseasecan be used to constrain the spread of the disease and reduce the severity of symptoms. Is there a viable strategy for such a preventive measure to be employed? There may well be, but at the moment the stockpile being procured on the UK's behalf makes no such provision. The plan and the stockpile are not matching up. The Government should have procured a stockpile for treatment purposes. Moreover, by this stage they should have considered the need for prophylaxis and placed orders beyond September 2006, so that they could not only replenish the stockpile when necessary, but add to it for prophylaxis purposes.
	There is also a limited risk of resistance developing to Tamiflu, which is the antiviral stockpile of first choice. I ask again the question that I asked on Monday but which the Secretary of State did not answer: have the Government considered making, or do they intend to make, Relenza available as a second-line antiviral drug?
	On vaccines and their preparation, the Government say that they are going to buy 2 million doses of the H5N1 vaccine, which is a generic vaccine for treating avian flu itself, not the virus that might develop in humans subsequently. What exactly is its intended use? According to the plan, it will be piloted to see whether it is effective in treating those who are, or might be, in direct contact with avian flu, and also in treating health care workers. Is 2 million doses the right number, therefore? If the vaccine is likely to be effective in treating health care workers, does it not follow that it is likely to have some effect on the wider population? What assessment is being made of such effectiveness? The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation discussed whether an H5N1 vaccine should be developed for the whole population in order to prime its immunity against an avian flu strain that transfers to the human population, but which retains characteristics closely linked to the original virus. The French Government intend to do exactly that, and we need to know whether our Government are working on such a plan.
	On face-masks and gloves, the Australians have purchased 50 million face-masks and a similar number of syringes, needles and so on. They placed the order in May, and they anticipate that they will be available in December. The French are contemplating ordering 200 million face-masks for use by health care and social care workers. Let us get this in perspective. On the outbreak of pandemic flu in this country, within the space of just weeks we would need that number of face-masks for our health care, social care and emergency service workers alone. In the course of a typical year, the NHS routinely purchases some 31 million face-masks, so there is an enormous difference between what we will require and what we currently have. No order has been placed, no tender has been made, no action taken on the part of the Government. This is a simple, straightforward measure that should arise from any contingency plan, but it is not being adopted.
	The Government have today placed the order for vaccines that I called for on Monday, but as the Minister will know, according to the pandemic flu plan published today, there are other issues to deal with. Curiously, those issues are framed as questions. The appendix on vaccine policy points out that there are constraints on vaccine production, such as the availability of suitable hen's eggs. It states:
	Contracts could be put in place to secure year-round supplies of eggs.
	Have they been put in place? Should they be put in place? Will they be put in place, and if so, when?
	The appendix also points out that research into adjuvanted vaccines could be undertaken. That is interesting, given that last Monday, The Times reported that exactly such research into adjuvants to an H5N1 vaccine had been proposed by a combination of researchers, including researchers from the National Institute for Biological Standards and Control. They produced the proposal in the spring, but they have received no response. We need to know exactly what the Government are doing about that research. The Chancellor apparently plans to spend 2 million, but on what we do not know. We need to know whether it amounts to a response to that sort of research proposal.
	Let us remember the importance of manufacturing capability. The public are being told that the Department of Health has purchased 120 million doses of vaccine for when pandemic flu occurs. It is not like that at all, though I am not blaming the Department: some press reports seem to suggest it, but that is not what is going on. What is really going on is an advance purchase order for 120 million doses, once we have been able to develop a vaccine, but significant manufacturing constraints have to be overcome before that can happen. The Government need to take certain measures.
	To put it in perspective, 300 million doses of flu vaccine are produced worldwide each winter for seasonal flu, yet one country, the UK, would need 120 million doses to deal with pandemic flu. Just imagine the scale of the increase in production capability that would be required. Back in April, the influenza sub-group of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation said that, ideally, we should have an additional vaccine production facility in the UK. We are clearly not in such an ideal position, so we need to understand how the Government will minimise the constraints on manufacturing.
	Critical care beds are another important issue. Professor Menon of Addenbrooke's hospital set out clearly in an article in Anaesthesia that the draft contingency plan published in March did not deal with the problem. He found that the requirements for critical care capacity in respect of beds and staff to support them would be so dramatic that they would literally overwhelm the NHS, which would be
	unable to cope with the increased demand provided by an influenza pandemic.
	That shows how important it is to manage demands on the NHS effectively. Professor Menon saw contingency planning as essential, but the contingency plan published today does not set out the necessary response. The NHS is told to respond in many respects, but at the local level, the NHS has proved unable to do the work or agree on what responses are necessary. In some cases, it is unable to put in place the resources for an effective response.
	On communications with the public, the House should reflect on the communications plans set out in the back of the contingency plan published today. It states that there is virtually no recall of the launch of the Government's pandemic flu contingency plan among the general population. It also states that unless health professionals are directly involved in the planning for pandemic flu, they are likely to have only mixed awareness of its potential impact, of antiviral treatment and of the current contingency plan. An article in The Observer on Sunday pointed out that 77 per cent. of doctors did not know what the response to an avian flu pandemic would be.
	I am sorry to have to take the House through all those details, but there are a range of deficiencies in our current preparedness. If action is taken now, major strides can be achieved in the coming months. This time next year, we will be better prepared for a flu pandemic, but if a contingency plan had been published a year ago, as it was in France, we would be better prepared now.
	Today, the Minister has an opportunity to clarify whether the Government will take the actions that we have called for. This week, we secured action from the Government on advance purchases of vaccines, but much more remains to be done. I commit the Opposition to work proactively and constructively to secure the best possible preparedness against pandemic flu. In pursuit of that objective and on behalf of all those we represent, I urge the House to support the motion this evening.

Rosie Winterton: I beg to move, To leave out from House to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
	pays grateful tribute to the excellent work of the emergency services, of Transport for London and of all involved in responding to the terrorist outrages of 7th July and 21st July; congratulates the Government on its comprehensive approach to preparedness for emergencies; notes the effectiveness of current Departmental responsibilities for emergency preparedness; further congratulates the Government on the steps taken to enhance communication with the public in respect of major threats; notes that supplies of vaccines, antibiotics, antidotes and specialist equipment are strategically placed around the UK for rapid deployment in the event of a mass casualty incident, and that spending on the stockpile to date exceeds 120 million; further notes that NHS organisations have well-established, comprehensive plans in place for dealing with pandemic influenza, and that the Government's updated pandemic flu contingency plan is being published today; welcomes the fact that the Government is stockpiling key drugs and equipment, and will have enough antiviral drugs to treat 25 per cent. of the population by September 2006; and recognises that good communication with the public and with health professionals is crucial before and during a pandemic and therefore congratulates the Government on making accurate and up to date information widely available to doctors and the public through various agencies.
	Let me start by completely endorsing the first statement in the Opposition motion, which is also reflected in our own amendment. We all share a deep appreciation of the response of the emergency servicesand, as the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) mentioned, Transport for Londonto the terrorist outrages in July. In last week's debate on the emergency services, hon. Members from both sides of the House praised those who work on the front line, and I am sure that that will happen again today.
	I am also sure that we would all agree that the tragic events in July underlined how important it is for the Government to prepare for major incidents, whether intentional or accidental, caused by conventional, chemical or biological material, or as a result of a natural disaster. That is why the Government have put in place a programme across all Departments to cover all parts of the United Kingdom. That is the capabilities programme, as the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire said, and it identifies the action that each Department would need to take in the event of a major incident to ensure resilience across the UK. For example, my Department leads on ensuring that essential services for health care, such as pharmaceutical dressings, would be available in the event of a major incident. Each Department has such plans in place.
	At central Government level, we identify future risks. The civil contingency secretary to the Cabinet Office considers the potential impact on the UK of any risks. The Civil Contingencies Act 2004, and the accompanying non-legislative framework, set out the arrangements and responsibilities at local, regional and national level for preparation for, and response to, emergencies. Regular major incident exercise and training programmes are undertaken across all agencies, involving international partners if appropriate. Those exercises enable us to test out the plans and familiarise staff with their roles in the event of an incident, and to update and improve the plans if necessary. We also learn the lessons of tragic events, such as those in July, and I know that my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government has attended several meetings on that very issue.

Rosie Winterton: We are considering the lessons that can be learnt from hurricane Katrina and the recent earthquake. The former demonstrated the need for proper co-ordination at all levels, which sadly appeared to be lacking in that instance. We are confident that the processes that we have set in place ensure that such co-ordination is possible, at local, regional and national level, as well as between Departments.

David Heath: I agree with the hon. Lady that the American political system is different from ours and the federal system does not easily translate, so not everything is applicable. What is of enormous interest, however, is the American investment in the Centre for Communicable Disease Control in Atlanta, which deals not only with epidemic and pandemic science but also with animal and human infections and indeed zoonoses. Has the Department considered that? Could it give us some pointers to link the efforts of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Department of Health to deal with communicable diseases?

Graham Stuart: We are all equally grateful that the mutation has not taken place, but from previous pandemic experiences we know of the speed with which viruses can travel across the world and the likelihood of that can only increase. Why did it take until March 2005 to produce the plan that my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) raised with the Minister in October 2004, when there is a limitation on resources to access vaccines and antivirals?

Rosie Winterton: I hope that the debate will provide an opportunity for us to ensure that we explain the situation. Of course the chief medical officer has taken action today to update the plan and to issue communications to the public and the health service about our preparedness in the UK. Let me stress again that we were one of the first countries to publish a pandemic contingency plan. The plan, which was updated in March, is being reissued today by the chief medical officer, as I have said. It provides the overall framework for an integrated UK-wide response, and it sets out what action we should, and can, take before a pandemic strikes and what we need to do when it arrives. Obviously the plan examines how we can reduce the health consequences of a pandemic as much as possible. It also analyses the disruption that a pandemic could cause to essential services and people's daily lives. As we have said, measures such as antiviral treatment and immunisation will be the best way to address the situation when they become available. We are preparing the NHS and society as a whole as best we can.

David Heath: I do not want to detain the Minister, but I am concerned. We are hearing a great deal about preparations for a human epidemic or pandemic. What we have not heard is that this is currently a veterinary problem, not a human medical problem; what the process is for preventing the disease becoming endemic in our bird population; and what symptoms people who keep back yard chickens, for example, should be looking for. That is the sort of information that some of the confused constituents of the hon. Member for Newark might want to hear at this moment. What should people be looking for in the bird population, whether domesticated or wild?

Rosie Winterton: If it became obvious that the H5N1 vaccine was appropriate for a mutation that had occurred and could be transmitted between humans, we would ensure that our sleeping contract delivered the vaccine for the whole population. At present, however, there is little point in our ordering 120 million doses of a vaccine that we are not sure would work in those circumstances. We have ordered 2 million to 3 million doses so that we have that ready in case it works. That is precautionary. It would not be wise for us to order 120 million doses at this stage, without knowing whether it worked.
	We have set in train our ability to order as soon as we can. If we know the strain, we can order the vaccine that is needed. In advance of that, antiviral drugs are the most effective way of treating patients and reducing the impact of the pandemic. We spent almost 200 million to create a stockpile of 14.6 million treatment courses of antivirals. That will be enough to treat the 25 per cent. of the population who may become ill with pandemic flu. As the hon. Gentleman said, the stockpile will be complete by September 2006. We have 2.5 million treatment courses available at present.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about our strategy for antivirals. We would use antivirals for treatment of those who become ill with pandemic flu. As I said, they are not generally intended for prophylactic use. The stockpile is intended to be large enough to treat all those who become ill, based on the estimates that we have received from experts. The question who should receive priority ought not to arise.
	Of course we are aware that there is a riskcurrently a very small risk, we believethat the pandemic might strike before the stockpile is complete. In those circumstance, we would prioritise the treatment of front-line health care workers and then those in at-risk groups. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we have not completely ruled out the use of antivirals for prophylaxisfor example, we would keep under review the need to protect poultry workers where there is an outbreak of avian flu among birds, or to protect the close contacts of someone arriving in this country with symptoms of avian flu.
	Comparisons have sometimes been made with France's Tamiflu order. As the hon. Gentleman said, it is exactly the same as ours. It will not be complete until the end of the year. It has been ordered in powdered form, which means that it then has to be turned into capsules, whereas we have taken the decision to order it in capsules so that it can be distributed quickly, as soon as it is needed. We have taken what we believe is the simplest course in that respect. Roche, the manufacturers of Tamiflu, announced on Tuesday that the United States Food and Drug Administration had granted approval for an additional manufacturing site in the US for the supply of Tamiflu. The company itself recognises the need to expand production and is prepared to discuss all available options for doing so.
	It has been suggested that we should also be stockpiling the other antiviral drug that is available, Relenza, but the issue is not quite as straightforward as it might seem. Relenza is given by inhalation and is licensed only for those aged 13 and over. It also needs to be used with great caution by people with asthma, and there is also some evidence that elderly people might find an inhaler difficult to use. However, we will continue to review our policy if new evidence emerges.
	The challenges facing the health and social care system would undoubtedly be on an unprecedented scale and would be felt across all sectors. The hon. Gentleman asked about critical care capacity, and we are very much aware of the paper prepared by Professor Menon and have set up a group chaired by the deputy chief medical officer to look at the very issues that he raised. We have invited David Menon and other experts on to the group and we will keep that issue under constant review.

Rosie Winterton: As I have said, we want 14.6 million courses available for treatment if necessary, but we will keep our policy under review, and if we need to make decisions on priorities because it is not all available at the same time, we will consider that.
	The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire also asked about medical equipment such as gloves and masks for health workers, and we have taken action in that regard and have agreed the requirements with the Health and Safety Executive. It was important to ensure that we ordered the right type of masks and gloves. We have had advice from the HSE, but we are also discussing the matter with health care professionals, because we need to ensure that we provide them with the most effective gloves and masks, and we want to get that right before we place an order. As soon as those discussions are complete, we will do so.

Rosie Winterton: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I must move on, because other hon. Members want to speak.
	The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire is right that good communication with the public and health professionals will be crucial both before and during a pandemic. As I have said, stories have appeared in the media about avian flu, pandemic flu and seasonal flu, and such stories sometimes cause confusion. We want to ensure that the public have clear and accurate information about a pandemic and its consequences. We have extensively tested the communications materials that will be used in the event of a pandemic with the public, and during the summer the chief medical officer alerted all doctors to guidance and advice on the Department of Health and the Health Protection Agency websites.
	Next week, we will be sending packs of information, including that already available on the website, to all primary care professionals, including GPs, and the CMO will send a letter enclosing frequently asked questions and key facts to every GP to help them support patients who may have concerns about pandemic flu, and those materials are available on the Department of Health website, too. As I have said, our planning for a pandemic has been highly commended by the World Health Organisation as being at the forefront of international preparation. I assure hon. Members that we are not complacent and that we keep our plans for not only pandemic flu, but general emergency preparedness under constant review, and we will make any necessary updates on the best available evidence.
	I hope that I have reassured the House about our strategy, and I urge hon. Members to reject the Opposition motion and to support the Government amendment.

Steve Webb: I certainly think that having a Minister with overarching responsibility for these matters is a good thing. The Home Secretary is already that person in relation to preparation for a terrorist emergency. I would be surprised if the Conservatives wanted to create more Ministers and extra bureaucracy and duplication. The debate is a funny mixtureit is almost as if there were two very different things that they wanted to talk about and lumped together. The Minister with the expertise to respond to a pandemic would be a very different person from the person who has to prepare the country for a terrorist attack. Using the same debate to cover two different areas does not help.
	We have discussed how far in advance the Government were alerted to these issues. I place on record my tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome, who had the foresight to raise them in the House in March 2003 in a debate called, Viral Pandemics. As long as two and a half years ago, he challenged the Government on their state of preparedness for them. The then Health Minister, the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy), said:
	The UK was one of the first countries to publish a national pandemic influenza contingency plan in 1997
	under the previous Government. He went on:
	it is important that plans are kept up to date and the plan is now being updated. [Official Report, 26 March 2003; Vol. 402, c. 137WH.]
	But if it was being updated in March 2003 when my hon. Friend drew attention to the issue, why did it take until March 2005 to produce it? The Government have taken too long to get moving on these important issues.
	Several concerns have been expressed about the Government's strategy, one of which relates to the stockpiling of Tamiflu. It is obviously, as far as we know, the best game in town, but there are worries about its effectiveness. A July 2003 academic study into the clinical effectiveness of oral oseltamivir, which is the same thing as Tamiflu, says:
	One systematic review found that oseltamivir reduces the duration of symptoms by up to 1 day but one subsequent RCT
	randomised control trial
	found a smaller difference between oseltamivir and placebo. Two RCTs found that oseltamivir increased nausea and vomiting compared with the placebo.
	Although that was a couple of years ago, how reassured are the Government that Tamiflu is effective?
	A report in the journal Nature refers to a Vietnamese patient who has a form of bird flu virus that has become partially resistant to Tamiflu. The report suggests that it
	may not be effective enough if an outbreak does happen.
	I understand that, if there were an alternative, the Government would be buying it instead of Tamiflu, but how robust is their advice on its effectiveness? Are they confident that it is effective as is hoped?
	The Minister talked about the pros and cons of Relenza as an alternative antiviral. It may be unsuitable for some groups but, if there are question marks over Tamiflu, should not the Government be looking at other antivirals as part of the strategy? For example, should not we be stockpiling them for groups for whom using an inhaler is not a problem?
	The Government say that it will be another year before they reach their target of covering a quarter of the population. What are they doing to work with Roche and other providers to increase supplies more rapidly? Roche has said:
	we are prepared to discuss all available options, including granting sub-licences, with any government or private company who approach us to manufacture Tamiflu or collaborate with us in its manufacturing.
	I appreciate that the Minister said that another manufacturing plant was being opened in the United States, and that is welcome, but what are the British Government doing to talk to Roche about the possibility of sub-licensing alternative manufacturers? Clearly, we all hope that we will get away with it and that nothing happens before we have our stockpiles, but should not the Government do more by working closely with the drug companies to ensure that things move more rapidly?
	Let us consider the adequacy of the contingency plans. I was startled by the response of the Secretary of State for Health on Monday to my urgent question when she said:
	My understanding is that all health authorities and PCTs have plans in place.[Official Report, 17 October 2005; Vol. 437, c. 632.]
	Will the Minister who responds to the debate clarify what plans the Secretary of State was talking about? Do all health authorities and primary care trusts have pandemic flu contingency plans in place? That is not my impression and I would therefore appreciate some clarification.
	I am also worried because primary care trusts have to implement the plans. At the moment, they have other things on their minds, such as being abolished, merged or restructured[Interruption.] And, indeed, in deficit. Will the Government reconsider the plan to restructure PCTs and health authorities while anxiety about a possible pandemic is gearing up and we are asking them to be thoroughly prepared to put emergency measures in place? Are organisations that are undergoing huge turbulence and upheaval best placed to do that? Is not it more important that the emergency plans are in place than that the Government's restructuring is effected? Should not the restructuring be put on ice?
	My hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome asked the Minister about measures to prevent veterinary spread. In other words, if there are outbreaks of bird flu in, unsurprisingly, the bird population, what will be done not so much with large-scale poultry farmersthe Minister's response was all about the National Farmers Union and the industrybut about people with a few chickens in the back garden? The disease could be spread just as easily through them. I am not talking about poultry workers, who may be well organised and briefed, but individuals whose actions or inaction could lead to the spread of the disease. I do not imagine that someone with half a dozen chickens in the back yard regularly checks the DEFRA website for guidance. What are the Government doing about proactively ensuring that people who keep poultry use the best possible animal husbandry methods and are aware of what they should do if they detect symptoms, and indeed, that they know what the symptoms are? That could apply to large numbers of people. What is being done to ensure that they have the best available advice?
	In The Times today, the United Nations expert made a powerful observation. He said:
	The preparedness of the world depends not so much on who is strong, but on who is weak.
	I would be delighted if the Government could tell us that we have not only one of the best plans but the best in the world. If it is true, that is great but we are vulnerable if we are not doing everything we can to ensure that the places where a human outbreak might start are also as well prepared as possible.
	Although the Minister said that scientific experts are travelling aroundI think she said that they are examining research into vaccineswhat are the Government doing to ensure that poor countries that perhaps cannot afford stockpiles of antivirals or all the necessary vaccines, get support from our Government and others to put them in the best possible position to contain an outbreak, thus protecting both ourselves and the citizens of those poor countries? Clearly, we have a self-interest as well as a humanitarian interest in ensuring that that is done. Although some of the manufacturers of antivirals and vaccines have pledged to make limited supplies available cheaply, if not for nothing, to some of those countries, what part are the Government playing in ensuring that that happens?
	I raised the matter on Monday in an urgent question and we received an initial response from the Government. Today, the Minister tried to respond thoroughly to several issues that the Opposition raised in their motion. However, when the chief medical officer refers to 50,000 deaths, it is not well understood that that estimate is based on 14 million people getting the symptoms of a flu pandemic. We can remember what happened when people believed that they would run out of petrol. The country almost ground to a halt because everyone panicked, people rushed out and that caused problems for the distribution network.
	I want the House to imagine the build-up to 14 million peopleover a long period, admittedly, but the Minister said that the peak could occur sooner than we thinkhaving the symptoms of a disease that is killing people. There will be stories on television night after night of thousands of people dying and being buried. If someone in my family got those symptoms and we then discovered that there were not enough antivirals and that my child or my brother would not have access to them, I cannot begin to imagine how different the scenario would be from the calm, measured ones that we might sit and plan in Whitehall or Westminster.
	I do not want to be alarmistthis has not been an alarmist debatebut I would like to seek reassurance from the Minister that contingency planning is based not on the response of calm, rational, reasoned individuals but on irrationality, and on people panicking and being desperate. How would everything work if that scenario were meshed with a situation in which large numbers of people were off sick and the transport infrastructure was not working? Can the Government reassure us that they have built into their planning scenario that kind of world, rather than one in which people have a measured and rational response to the crisis, because I fear that that is not what we would get?

Bruce George: We have been throwing brickbats at the Governmentsome of which are perhaps deservedbut I wonder how good we, as a Parliament, are at dealing with civil contingencies. The answer is that we are very bad at it. We have Select Committees that inquire into their own Departments, but that misses the point. The issues of contingency planning, emergency planning and resilience cannot be resolved by one Select Committee monitoring one Department.
	What has come out of the events of the past few years is that the Government's response needs to cut across all Departments, horizontally and vertically, and across regional and local government, the emergency services, the private sector and those who look after our critical national infrastructure, which is mostly privatised. Is our Select Committee system remotely fit to monitor that range of inter-departmentalism? No, it is not. We excel at stove-piping better than the most stove-piped industry or Government Department in the country.
	There have been limited examples of inter-departmentalism in Parliament, involving collaboration between Select Committees. I have to say that most of that work involved the Defence Committee. There were collaborations between the Defence and Foreign Affairs Committees, and the Defence and Trade and Industry Committees. The Defence Committee also played a major role in setting up the quadripartite Committee. We sought to break awayI should not say we, because I am no longer a member of the Defence Committeefrom that very limited approach to the role of the Select Committee. There are other mechanisms that can be used. We have the Liaison Committee, and there was a Joint Committee on the Bill that became the Civil Contingencies Act 2004. Perhaps that is a model with which we can proceed.
	After 9/11, I called together the Chairmen of a number of Select Committees and suggested that, as we were all going to be involved in examining the consequences of those events, we should establish some ground rules so that we did not each ask the same people to appear before each Committee, as the US Congress does, and ask them all the same questions. I suggested that we collaborate. The response was zero. For one reason or anotherdecent reasons, no doubtmy colleagues were not prepared to collaborate.
	What did the Defence Committee do? We did it ourselves: we walked over all the Government Departments. An expurgated version of what one Minister is alleged to have said to us is, What the devil is the Defence Committee doing walking all over my Department? That was a classic example of stove-piping. Yet the result was the best report that the Defence Committee has ever produced, because we considered the issue across a broad base. I suggest that we, as parliamentarians, start to put pressure on our colleagues to consider an alternative model for the way in which we and those up the corridorlike it or not, the House of Lords is also part of the parliamentary processscrutinise the decision-making process, so that we can do it more effectively. If we were to ask the Library how many questions had been asked about the civil contingencies secretariat over the past three years, we would be given the answer hardly any. It is okay having a good rant on an occasion such as this, but what are we doing seriously to scrutinise and influence the decision-making process?

Bruce George: That was going to be about my 11th point until I was instructed to make a short speech. The Defence Committee's superb report, Defence and Security in the UK, which, of course, everyone will have read, considered the matter. The then Home Secretary was not ecstatic about our proposals, because he thought that we were attacking him, which we were not. We did not want a director of homeland securitya Tom Ridge-type characterand events have shown that the American model is not very appropriate for the United States, let alone the United Kingdom. Any Home Secretary is overburdened with a range of activities, one of which is contingency planning and counter-terrorism. The Defence Committee proposed that there should be a very senior Minister, because, as has been pointed out forcefully, someone who operates in Cabinet as an observer at Minister of State level in the hierarchy will just be used as an office boy. Therefore, it would be a good idea to have someone devoted to cutting across this whole range of activity, as it is more than a full-time job. That idea is not getting very far, however.
	I am sorry to keep on about the Defence Committee, but the report was excellent. At the time that we produced the report, the civil contingencies secretariat had been establishedit was established before 9/11, and therefore had an opportunity to flex its muscles. The report stated:
	It is a matter of regret that the CCS was not able to respond more positively and energetically to the events of 11 September. Instead of using its unique position at the heart of Government to lead a strategic response it seems to have become bogged down in the details of the plans of individual departments and the relationships between them. Instead of being the solution to the habitual 'departmentalism' of Whitehall, it has become a casualty of it .
	Two and a half years have passed since then, but one suspects that the problem of departmentalism has not yet been resolved.
	I am not totally convinced about the lead Department concept, for a number of reasons. One might be a very good permanent secretary and able to operate one's Department pretty well in the normal crises that might unfold in the course of a working day, week, month or year. But we are now talking about leading the Department's response to a humdinger of a massive terrorist attacknot one or two on the Richter scale but 10that has gone through the military and intelligence system just like the first attack in July this year. One wonders whether all Departments have done what the Ministry of Defence has done, which is to train a core of people who will head that response on behalf of the Ministry of Defenceprofessionals who are trained and have the psychological make-up to deal with such a crisis, who have attended relevant courses and spent a great deal of time eliciting information. I hope that all Departments are prepared to do that. Criticism of the permanent secretary by me and Members of Parliament is not something that Departments like, but the idea should be considered.
	It is not a failure of this Government that causes me anxiety but of government in general: has anybody seen an organisational chart of central Government Departments, regional and local government, the health service, the intelligence services and the private sector, showing who is involved in the process of trying to pick up the pieces should there be an attack? In my experience, it is sometimes difficult for the Ministry of Defence to talk to the Ministry of Defence. What we have here is almost the entire spectrum of Government, and government in society, all of it heaped together in a labyrinth of decision making and input. Have we reached the point at which we can say that each component is trained for the task and prepared to respond? Is there the necessary glue and are there the necessary mechanisms for co-ordination? Is the decision-making process adequate?
	We can learn much from our own exercises, our own mistakes and other people's mistakes, of which there are many. I understand why a small country, or a poor country such as Pakistan, cannot respond effectively. It is more reprehensible for the largest country in the world to fail so miserably. Why has that happened? The reason may be cronyism. Perhaps those who reached the top positions were appointed for their party political loyalties rather than their expertise. Perhaps the federal system, deliberately constructed more than 200 years ago, is to blame. The country should have stuck with the United Kingdom if it wanted an example of centralised decision making. The process of fragmented decision making was created with the intention of rendering decision making almost impossible, and that is what has happened.
	My main criticism of the process is that, despite the experience we have gained, we cannot be entirely certain that, for all its exercises and expertise, Cobrathe Cabinet Office briefing roomhas been fine-tuned to deal with all crises. Too much responsibility is heaped on the police because they are so professional. Is the gold-silver-bronze system working to the desired extent? That may not be the case.

Bruce George: It is point eight, which I shall now push up the hierarchy.
	I do not think that the Government have properly activated the private sector, which is now central to our economy and contains a great deal of expertise. A good deal of responsibility has been bestowed on those in the private sector because, should the balloon go up, not many military and police personnel will be available and they will have to defend their own premises. I wonder whether businesses and others in the sector have been told, You must be clued up. You must have contingency plans. You must know what resilience is. You must know what to do if there is a direct hit on your premises.
	If a concern in Canary Wharf, the City of London or the financial services sector elsewhere is out of business for half a day, it is dead. Are companies prepared to spend enough to develop in-house expertise and enable shareholders and employees to feel confident that, in the event of a disaster, the safety of personnel will be secured as far as possible and they will be able to repair to other parts of the country where there will be office accommodation, computers and staff who do not work in the central office, so that the organisation can soon be up and running?
	We should consider how many of the companies that were based in the twin towers folded. How many of the companies that were destroyed by the IRA bomb in Manchester exist now? Some business men think, My insurance will take care of it. It will not. Some think, No one will attack my company, but someone might be prepared to attack a company 2 miles away, and others could be hit and destroyed in the process. The private sector must take its role more seriously and have the necessary resilience and contingency planning. About half of it does not.
	I am the titular head of a number of private security organisations, although I have no financial interest whatsoever. I remember that, after 9/11, the private sector, which I had been challenging for a number of years on regulation, offered to provide the police with 2,000 personnel who would be available within four hours to assist them in responding to a direct and catastrophic attack. What has happened to that proposal? Nothing. The security industry could respond quicker than the Army or the Territorial Army, which may or may not be around when such an incident occurs. Even if they are around, they might not be able to muster very quickly.
	There have been a lot of positive developments. The Civil Contingencies Committee and the civil contingencies secretariat have had an influx of very good people, and much has happened to show that we are capable of responding to an attack at a certain level. But the Government need to show greatI will not say greaterprofessionalism in dealing with these issues. The structures must be good not only on paper; we must be capable of deploying against a whole range of threats, be it terrorism or natural or other disasters. Such events have overtaken others and could overtake us.
	I hope that the regional and local structures that the new legislation provides will enable a suitable response to such threats and that a debate such as this will help our parliamentary colleagues to take more of an interest in emergency planning. Perhaps the Joint Committee provides a model for the setting up of a new committee, but in saying that, I should point out that I am not offering my services in this regard, even though I am semi-unemployed. Why let the emergency planning process in British government get away with not being scrutinised seriously? If those concerned are smart enough, they will know that it would be to their advantage to have interested, qualified and knowledgeable Members of Parliament sitting on a cross-cutting committee. Such a committee could focus attention on this issue and put questions and elicit answers regularly, rather than sporadically.
	One thing is certain: be it tomorrow, next week, next month or next year, an attack will take place somewhere in this country that will make July's events in London seem like a minor preparation. If I were in government, I would not like to be hauled in before the major commission of inquiry that would inevitably take place following such an attack, and have to answer the question, Well, Ministerby then it might well be ex-MinisterWhere were you during this country's preparations for dealing with a catastrophic attack?. I suspect that most would be absolutely clean in this regard, but a nagging doubt might arise in the mind of any Minister or civil servant. They will ask themselves, Have we done enough? Have we provided enough resources? Do we have resilience in government? Are we prepared not just for low-level attacks, but for the serious attack that no country can respond to absolutely effectively?.
	This debate is about more than simply chickens. That said, I point out that I was in Romania three weeks ago and tucked in heartily to a range of birds and animals, so watch this spaceor ostracise me in the canteen. More seriously, I hope that semi-permanent parliamentary scrutiny will enable better decision making and preparation, and enable us to give advice and to react to such events. There should be no party politics in this, just consideration of the health and welfare of our constituents and all the people of this country.

Barbara Keeley: Much has been written and said in the past week about pandemics and influenza, and some of the reporting has bordered on the alarmist. It is therefore appropriate that we should discuss the issues in a more measured way hereand, incidentally, without making cheap political points.
	As the amendment states, our NHS organisations have well-established, comprehensive plans in place for dealing with pandemic influenza. The prime objectives in dealing with influenza pandemics are to save lives; to reduce the health impact of the pandemic; and to minimise the disruption to health and other services, while maintaining business continuity. Given that the vaccine may not be available to all in the first wave of the pandemic, clear and transparent policies are needed for prioritising vaccine use, as and when it becomes available. I wish to refer to one aspect of that prioritisation, in terms of building on the principles established for dealing with seasonal flu.
	The overall uptake of vaccination against seasonal flu has improved, and in recent years more than 70 per cent. of those aged 65 or over have been vaccinated. Variations occur by area, but the two primary care trusts serving my constituency achieved a 70 per cent. and a 72 per cent. uptake, so we are on target. This year, the influenza immunisation programme has been extended to include two further groups: people with chronic liver disease; and the main carers of elderly or disabled persons, whose welfare may be at risk if their carer falls ill.
	I congratulate the Government on recognising the need to include carers. For some years now, carers' organisations have campaigned for health measures such as free flu jabs to be targeted at carers. Many organisations have also employed primary care workers to work with GPs and primary health care teams to identify and support carers in their practice populations. Many of those primary care projects have been in existence for years and have had successful programmes prioritising flu jabs for carers. In places such as Leeds, Milton Keynes, Bristol and Salford, the primary care trust carers projects have ensured that all carers can be offered free flu vaccination by their GPs. The benefit of such work is that it not only protects the carer from flu, but supports their caring role by helping them to safeguard their health.
	Although there are 5.2 million carers, only some 20 per cent. care at the heavier end of commitment of more than 50 hours a week. In a GP practice population of 2,000, there are likely to be 200 carers, only 40 of whom will be caring at the heavier end. Put that way, the numbers of additional flu vaccinations look manageable for GPs and their staff. I therefore hope that the Government will consider the idea of extending flu vaccination not only to those who care for an elderly or disabled person, but to all heavily committed carers.
	It is increasingly understood that caring has an impact on the carer's own health, so it is right to treat carers as a vulnerable and at-risk group. Increasingly, too, carers at the heavier end of commitment are seen as partners in providing health care. NHS employers are directed to offer influenza immunisation to employees directly involved in patient care, and that practice extends to staff in nursing and care homes. In cities such as Leeds, Milton Keynes, Bristol and Salford, primary care trusts have offered vaccination to all carers, so I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Health, can look into extending influenza immunisation to all groups of carers in subsequent winter seasons.
	The principle implemented this year, of recognising carers as partners in health care who need to be protected by vaccination, is important. I hope that it will continue and be extended to all carers in future years, as well as providing a basis for their inclusion in the priorities for vaccination in the unlikely event of an influenza pandemic.

Michael Gove: Emergency preparedness is a central test of the effectiveness of Government. Just as we judge a hospital not only on how well it deals with chronic conditions but on how its accident and emergency facilities perform, so when assessing the performance of a Government it is not the standard, day by day, week by week administration but how they rise to the great challenges that they face that enables us to judge how capable Ministers are.
	Unfortunately, as the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), who is no longer in the Chamber, hinted, the Government have not always risen as effectively to the challenges as they might have done. I was grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for pointing out that there is a strong case, which has been put by our Front-Bench team, for the appointment of a central co-ordinating figure to provide leadership and administrative grip at moments of crisis. That was the recommendation of the Select Committee that the right hon. Gentleman chaired and a position that my party has championed. I hope that there can still be an opportunity for a rethink when the Minister for Policing, Security and Community Safety sums up the debate.
	When we consider the crises that the Government have faced, inevitably, like the curate presented with the egg, we have to say that they have been good in parts. Let us consider the fuel protest. By the Government's admission, we were only hours away from anarchy. As the hon. Member for Northavon (Steve Webb) pointed out earlier, imagine what would happen if they had that level of administrative grip in the face of a pandemic that could affect 14 million people.
	We should also remember the foot and mouth disaster, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr. Stuart) referred. Not only was the general election delayed, but panic gripped parts of the country. Parts of our nation had to be closed down. The Army had to be brought in, and there was friction between the civil and military powers about how to deal with the crisis. Those were test cases of emergencies where the Government failed to provide the administrative grip that a Minister for homeland security could supply.
	One of the features that characterised the Government's response to both crises was recognition that the public required reassurance. Unfortunately, the reassurance the Government tried to provide was through communication rather than action. As my hon. Friend said, on both occasions the Government tried to spin their way out of trouble by reassuring people that things would be all right; they were telling, not showing. The only effective reassurance at times of crisis is tough action to resolve the problems, not a Minister appearing on television attempting to calm us down when the evidence on the streets is of a crisis spiralling out of control.
	Emergency preparedness in the context of our debate covers the risk of both a flu pandemic and a terrorist attack. My colleagues put a number of pertinent questions about a flu pandemic that have not yet been satisfactorily answered. We have no real idea whether we have the extra bed capacity to deal with the scale of pandemic envisaged by the chief medical officer. We have no real explanation of the Government's delay in stockpiling vaccine. We have been told that they are waiting for best evidence, but who is to say that medical evidence will not change in the future, just as the virus itself might mutate.
	It seems as though what we have heard is an excuse for procrastination, rather than a justification for wise administrative action. As my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies) pointed out, the same applies with the provision of simple matriel, such as face masks and gloves. Other countries, such as Australia, have had the opportunity to acquire such matriel, as he said. We were producing it on our own doorstep, and we failed. Those are all pertinent questions that have not been effectively addressed by the Minister or her colleagues.
	Let me deal briefly with terrorism. In the motion, we congratulate the emergency services on their superb work on 7 July. We would all say that those who worked in the fire service, the ambulance corps and the police did a brilliant job in cleaning up after what was a tremendously horrifying day for many of us, but one of the things that we need to bear in mind is that my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition asked in moderate and reasoned terms for a look to be taken into the circumstances surrounding the events of that day. He stated that the finger of blame should be pointed only at one group of peoplethe terrorists responsiblebut he also asked whether we could have a proper commission of inquiry into the events of that day. When the Minister for Policing, Security and Community Safety comes to the Dispatch Box, I should be very interested if she would tell us what lessons have been learned, what systems have been put in place to enable those lessons to be made public, what inquiries have gone on, what we can know about the events of 7/7 and what the Government are doing.
	The Government are very keen to trumpet the legislative changes that they wish to make to deal with the terrorist threat, but we also know that operational behaviour counts, and that is the Government's Achilles heel. Consider the scenes at Heathrow, when we knew that there was a real threatI do not doubt for a moment that there was oneand tanks and other armoured vehicles were mobilised. What signal did that send? The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), acknowledges that that was a mistake. Why was that mistake allowed to happen on his watch? What lessons will the right hon. Lady tell us have been learned from that episode?
	Another area where profound operational questions have been asked is in the shooting of Mr. Jean Charles de Menezes. I know that that case is being reviewed and that it has been hijacked by extremist elements on the left, who wish to undermine

Meg Hillier: I congratulate the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton), on her clear exposition of the issues surrounding the avian flu pandemic that faces us. However, it is peculiar that although the debate is entitled Emergency Preparedness, the Opposition have focused almost exclusively on health matters. It was quite heartening to hear the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) at least touch on other matters.
	It was a peculiar choice of title for the debate given that the Opposition really wanted to discuss health. The hon. Member for Northavon (Steve Webb) made an interesting speech and his academic thoughtfulness was welcome. I only wish that he would listen to his own arguments, vote with the Government and have the courage of his convictions to persuade his colleagues to follow suit.
	I examined London's emergency preparedness when I was a member of another placethe London assembly. The assembly conducted full scrutiny of the various organisations involved in dealing with London's security. I assure my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) that the 25 elected members of the assembly had robust discussions about the matter, albeit inevitably in private, and that all the recommendations that we made were taken on board and came into full effect on 7 July.
	Among the recommendations was the suggestion that the London Mayor should have a clear role in communicating with Londoners. He was heavily involved in the discussions and emergency preparedness for London. We recommended that communication with Londoners should be betterseveral hon. Members have mentioned that pointand that links with local government should be made clearer. We suggested that the gold command should include someone from local government because we realised that many needs in any emergency would be provided for by London's local government.
	I hope that I can be forgiven for talking about my constituency for a moment. The Mayor recently launched the Spirit of London bus. It is a special bus in Hackney because it is usually used on the No. 30 bus route. Of course many of us remember that it was the No. 30 bus that was blown up on 7 July. The No. 30 bus goes to Hackney Wick. Two weeks later, the No. 26 bus, which was on its way to Hackney Wick, had a bomb on it, too. One of the dead on the day was a student at Hackney community college, so Hackney sorely appreciates the importance of emergency preparedness in London. We would all recognise that the emergency services did an excellent job that day and should be congratulated by us all. I am pleased that hon. Members have said that today, as do the motion and the amendment.
	I put on record my personal congratulations to the local borough police command in Hackney and especially the borough commander, Simon Pountain. He and his team have done an excellent job developing community relations in Hackney and have been praised by the excellent inter-faith forum in Hackney. The forum brings together rabbis, imams and priests to work together on community relations and they universally respect Simon Pountain. His officers were busy building community relations after the bombs of 7 July. They conducted bus searches on that day and have since been engaged continually in a highly visible policing strategy to reassure the citizens of Hackney, South and Shoreditch. I commend Hackney as a model for such work on community relations to my hon. Friend the Minister of State and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing, Security and Community Safety.
	Despite today's erudite debate, I am not exactly sure how a homeland security Minister would have helped Hackney or London on 7 July. The hon. Member for Northavon mentioned an article in one of today's papers that cited an expert who talked about how we deal with the weak, not the strong. I will not go into it, because time is short, but I think that how we deal with the elderly and with vulnerable disabled people is a clear issue in relation to a flu pandemic. The comments of my hon. Friend the Minister of State about a combination of the two viruses show how critical it is that flu jabs take place. As a former carer, I am aware of many of the issues that prevent older people from accessing flu jabsmy hon. Friend the Member for Worsley (Barbara Keeley) went into the details, so I do not have to. Again, however, I do not understand how a homeland security Minister would tackle such issues.

David Davies: If we have a Minister for homeland security, I am sure that he will go to see what the GLA is doing. I would like to show him what the Welsh Assembly managed to do.
	The response to foot and mouth was an absolute disasterthat is the nicest thing that I could say about it. I saw at first hand the problems we had getting people in to deal with culling. In some areas, carcases piled up. There appeared to be no clear lines of accountabilityno one seemed to know who was in charge, even the people who were supposedly running the show. Monmouthshire is on the Welsh side of the border with England, so technically the Welsh Assembly was in overall charge, but an office of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in Worcester was running things; yet on one occasion when we rang the Worcester office to talk to the people who were dealing with the problems, they did not seem to know what the Welsh Assembly was. That was totally unacceptable.
	In the case of the flooding, nothing could have been done to prevent it, but every effort was made to alleviate the problems that people experienced. I give particular credit to the meals on wheels service operated by Monmouthshire county council which risked life and limb to ensure that hot meals and drinks were delivered to people. We have no complaint about the way in which the situation was dealt with, but in the years since people have continued to face the problem of flooding because no one can cut through the thicket of bureaucratic regulations that have to be overcome to put in place a decent flood defence scheme. It is therefore important to make the case for a Minister for homeland security who can take overall charge of dealing with those problems.
	We now face threats more serious than flooding or foot and mouth in the form of terrorism and avian flu. No one could say that the Government have failed to be proactive in talking about terrorism, but sometimes they have talked it up to try to gain more draconian powers for themselves. I draw Members' attention to a headline a few years ago that appeared in the Daily Mail. [Hon. Members: It must be true.] I rather think that it was not. On 23 November, a report headed Target Canary Wharf said that a group of al-Qaeda terrorists was apparently planning to hijack planes and fly them straight into Canary wharf. The story came from intelligence sources, which had taken it upon themselves to talk to the Daily Mail just two days before the Queen's Speech, in which the Government were seeking extra powers for themselves, purportedly to combat terrorism. If there was any truth in that story why on earth were arrests not made and why did we never hear anything more about it? Why did the Government allow security sources to talk to the Daily Mail and if they did not give such authorisation, why did they not hunt them down in the same way that they hunted down David Kelly?
	In the minds of many, the story is an utter fabrication given to a right-wing tabloid just hours before the Queen's Speech announced all sorts of controversial powers for the Government. That is why people do not have any confidence or trust in them when they talk about terrorism. They have told us what they are going to do about avian flu, yet we are well behind other countries. The Government say that they are going to reach their targets, but the target for vaccination courses in the United Kingdom is about 25 per cent. as opposed to 30 per cent. in France and the Netherlands and 50 per cent. in Italy. The Minister could not answer my question about masks and gloves. The Australians have purchased those items from the UK so we can no longer purchase them ourselves. She said that the Government had to talk to the health and safety people. Presumably, the Australians, who belong to a health and safety-conscious nation, did so several months before the British could.
	What we are asking for is not in the least unreasonable. We are faced with a Government who have given us quangos, taskforces and bureaucrats galore. We have an army of clipboard-wielding busybodies up and down the country setting rules for everything. All that we are asking for is one extra Minister and a skeleton staff to be taken from other Departments to try to avert a disaster. I urge Government Members to put their constituents first, think again and support our motion.

Patrick Mercer: Forgive me. I do not have time to give way. Perhaps in a moment.
	At least we have a contingency plan for a flu pandemic. At least in Tuxford in my constituency, there has been an exercise of a sort to deal with a flu pandemic, but I am not sure that CONTEST, the strategy for counter-terrorism, is anything like as well prepared as the contingency plans for the flu pandemic. I am sure that, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire said, there is plenty wrong with that, but not as wrong as the woeful lack of preparation for terrorist attacks in this country.
	We have seen that a flu pandemic is probable. We have seen that there are planning assumptions of 50,000 dead. What we know about terrorism is that it is not probableit is definite. It is unlikely to kill thousands. It is more likely to kill tens, but the insidious drip of calculated evil has an effect far beyond the vagaries of nature. Look, for instance, at how Islamist fundamentalists exploited the decades of fear that ETA had created in Spain. The appalling but bloodily modest 192 fatalities brought down a Government and fractured a coalition.
	What have we done to prepare ourselves for such eventualities? The right hon. Member for Walsall, South talked about the use of the private sector. The London chamber of commerceI am sure that the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch will be interested to hear thishas carried out a review of terrorist attacks on businesses and come up with some interesting proposals. In reply to the question whether it was thought that another terrorist attack on London was inevitable, 83.8 per cent. said yes. When asked whether a business contingency plan had been adopted or existing plans updated in the light of the recent bombings, 25 per cent. said yes, 74 per cent. said no.
	What more can we do? Let us please ensure that business is motivated. Let us use the private sector, but the private sector cannot be allowed to establish
	a reward scheme designed to encourage information to be volunteered on a confidential basis which leads to the foiling or solving of a terrorist attack.,
	as advocated by the London chamber of commerce. That is not a responsibility for the private sector. That needs to be led and directed by Government, and I suggest by a single Minister for homeland security.
	The whole business of terrorist preparation is clearly much bigger than the example that I am about to consider. Does the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor) still wish to intervene?

Dari Taylor: I am absolutely shocked at all that the hon. Gentleman is saying today. It is clear that he neither knows nor has he made himself aware of all the work that is being done by the intelligence agencies. The hon. Gentleman is perpetrating an outrageous piece of information from the Opposition Benches, and I hope that he is prepared to withdraw all that he is saying.

Patrick Mercer: No, certainly not. I am talking about emergency preparedness. Let us be quite clear about the fact that it was the intelligence agencies that reduced the level of warning days before the attacks on 7 July. There is much to be learnt and much to be done. We cannot allow matters to continue as they are at the moment.
	Let me drill down and consider a specific detail of our preparedness. Will the Minister sayI know that she will not answer these questions because she never doesexactly what has been done to make the tube safer to travel on today than it was on 7 July? The dogs and the armed police patrols have fallen off badly. If there is a lack of manpower, why has not the civil contingencies reaction force been called up? That was the only concrete suggestion that the Ministry of Defence came up with after 2001. It has not been called out; it has not been deployed. Why are there no instructions in carriages about what to do in the event of a disaster. I asked the Minister that two and a half years ago. If my train gets stuck in a tunnel, I still do not know what to do. Is the rail live? Is it safe to get out? I have no idea. It is the only form of transport that I have come across where there are no safety instructions inside the carriages. Why are there no bandages and emergency water in every carriage? Why are there not lights in the tunnels showing us in which direction to travel? Why are there no signs of the high-tech searching techniques that Israel has pioneered?
	I have no doubt that the Minister will refer to OSIRIS II, the only exercise that has been conducted to make our tube any safer than it is at the moment. I also have no doubt that the group that intended to attack this country two weeks ago was Ansar al-Islam, and that it intended to attack the tube again. As an example of the paucity of planning across the country, our tube is no safer to travel on today than it was on 7 July. I challenge the Minister to show me that I am wrong.
	As I have said, the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton) has been horribly complacent and self-congratulatory about the methods and measures that have been implemented. I ask her to reflect on why the Secretary of State for Health referred that particular problem to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
	We had our wake-up call in September 2001, so I was shocked by how shocked Ministers were in July this year. I ask the Ministers to ensure that we are much better prepared and much more resilient next time.

Hazel Blears: The single point on which I agree with the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) is that we have had an excellent debate, although it has been a little bit awkward because we have tried to bring together two distinct issues. In my winding-up speech, I will endeavour to deal with some of the points concerning health, as well as some issues surrounding homeland security and terrorism.
	The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) has raised a range of issues, which the Minister dealt with in her measured and specific response. He asked whether we have learned lessons from our experience in Northern Ireland. We have learned lessons, but I am sure that he accepts that the nature of today's terrorist threat is significantly different from the terrorist threat in Northern Ireland, given that today's terrorists are prepared to use suicide bombers and are unconcerned by the number of casualties that they inflict. Although we can learn lessons, we face a different terrorist threat today.
	The hon. Member for Northavon (Steve Webb) discussed Tamiflu and asked whether we consider it effective. We have been careful about the claims that we have made for antivirals: Tamiflu will reduce the length and severity of illness and reduce complications, and we currently have no reason to believe that it would not be effective.
	The hon. Gentleman raised the important issues of capacity and supply. We are already holding discussions with the manufacturer, Roche, and we have secured an agreement to use another factory.
	The hon. Gentleman also raised the issue of sub-licensing. Again, we are continuing active consideration and discussion with the company to make sure that we can expand capacity.
	The hon. Gentleman asked whether the primary care trusts and strategic health authorities have implemented plans around the pandemic. The PCTs and SHAs have implemented such plans, and an ongoing checking process is making sure that the plans, which will be audited, are effective.
	Several hon. Members asked whether we can help to contain any outbreakthe hon. Member for Northavon said that we will be judged by not only the strong, but the weak. We have contributed 600,000 to support World Health Organisation surveillance in south-east Asia, and we have also contributed to the WHO stockpile. Furthermore, Roche has said that it will donate 3 million doses of antivirals to the WHO, and we are ready to help internationally wherever we can.
	The hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr. Stuart) raised several issues concerning poultry I confess to not being a poultry expert. Apparently, DEFRA runs not only its website, but an excellent helpline that provides advice for large-scale poultry farmers and people who keep a small number of chickens. If free range chickens must be taken in doors, a committeeI think that it is in Brusselswill consider maintaining their free range status in those circumstances, although we are not there yet.
	On homeland security, I join all hon. Members in congratulating our emergency services on their magnificent response in the wake of 7 July, and I know that many countries from across the world were equally impressed. The attack took place when the G8 was meeting, and all the delegates at the G8 meeting were hugely impressed by the response from all our emergency servicesthe police, the health service, the fire service and local government. However, that was no accidentit was the result of good planning, extensive exercise programmes, and people who knew what their role and responsibilities would be. The fact that they had trained together as agencies was key to the fact that it all worked on that day and worked again a couple of weeks later when we had the attempted bombings. It was an exemplary response. I am not at all complacent. There are still many lessons that we can learn from the incidents that happened not only in this country but right across the world, and we have excellent international relationships to ensure that that happens.
	The hon. Member for Newark asked what kinds of exercises we do. I genuinely accept that he wants to make a contribution in this subject, but he really ought to know that exercises take place on a weekly basis. We do tabletop exercises and command post exercises, we have three live counter-terrorist exercises every year on a national scale, and local authorities continually exercise at a very local level. We recently had live exercises involving hijacked aircraft, a terrorist occupation of off-shore oil wells and ships, and the threatened release of chemical and biological agents and improvised nuclear devices. If those are not high-level, complex planning exercises, I do not know what are. The exercise that happened at Bank in September 2003 involved scenarios very similar to those that we encountered on 7 July, and the practised ability to get people out of the tube probably saved more lives than were unfortunately lost during the incident.
	Several Members proposed the idea of having a Minister for homeland security. I welcome the Liberal Democrats' view that that is a confused policy, because that is exactly what it is. We have a Minister responsible for co-ordinating this action across Governmenthe is the Home Secretary, who chairs a committee of Ministers right across Government who take the lead in their Department. I would say this to the hon. Member for Newark: really think carefully about this. Is there any benefit in stripping out of Departments the expertise that resides there to bring it together in one area? It would simply mean that those Departments no longer had ownership of the issues involved in emergency planning, resilience, counter-terrorism and all the work that we need to do. We have found that having that expertise embedded in Departments, with a proper co-ordinating machinery through the cross-Government committee co-ordinated by the Home Secretary, works extremely well. I do not feel that a Minister for homeland security, whether at Minister of State or Cabinet level, is going to work. The hon. Member for Newark said, I am he; well, I am afraid that I am not she. There is no vacancy. Although I know that he is looking for work, I am afraid that I will not be able to offer him any help on those terms.
	Members asked about public information. That is important. We published a booklet on preparing for emergencies that went out to every household. It had very good reach across the community, and our research shows that the public welcomed the practical, down-to-earth advice that it gave themnot only about terrorism but about a whole range of emergencies from floods and fires to the things that we have discussed today. We also have the anti-terrorist hotline.
	I can tell the hon. Member for Newark that a huge amount is going on in relation to safety on the tube in terms of mandatory searches, CCTV and trying to make sure that we are as safe as we can possibly be.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) made some important points, especially about our parliamentary scrutiny processes, and ascertaining whether we can find a better cross-cutting method of scrutinising some important issues. We should consider that. However, my experience shows that business is increasingly taking those matters very seriously. I have attended several events with business, for example, to discuss continuity plans. The London Resilience Forum has an excellent record on business continuity. There are also some good initiatives to involve the private security industryin which my right hon. Friend has an interestespecially in working with the Metropolitan police.
	Hon. Members also mentioned resources. The resources for the police and the Security Service have increased enormously to give us capability and resilience. The Security Service will grow from approximately 1,800 employees to 3,000. Spending on police services has doubled. I am not complacent but I believe that we have one of the best systems for emergency preparedness.

Cheryl Gillan: I am most grateful for the opportunity to raise the case of my constituent, Mrs. Summerbell. Both she and her son have been failed badly by the Child Support Agency, and I hope that the Minister will be able to put that right in his response tonight.
	Mrs. Summerbell's child will be 10 years old in November, and in her file, which I have in my office, there is evidence that the same three steps have been repeated over and over again. Sadly, I hold in my hand a letter sent to me earlier this year that contains the immortal phrase,
	To be honest I had come to my wit's end.
	I am sure that that sentiment is echoed by many people when dealing with the CSA.
	The pattern is as follows. Mrs. Summerbell collects evidence about her former partner's means and presents it to the CSA. The CSA tries, and fails, to collect outstanding arrears from the absent father. It tells Mrs. Summerbell that there is nothing more it can do, unless she accepts a departure to a maintenance procedure. It would be rather like a formal and rigidly patterned dance, were it not so frustrating for the parent with care, and were it not for the fact that, in the end, it is a young child who is effectively the victim. Believe it or not, it is seven years since Mrs. Summerbell approached the CSA, and the matter is far from resolved.
	Mrs. Summerbell tells me that she has seen it stated in the press that the CSA has the power to employ private detectives or to take away an absent parent's driving licence, but none of these sanctions has been used in her case, to the best of my knowledge. If no new evidence existed about the absent father, the CSA understandably might say that it had tried and failed, but with the best will in the world, that cannot be said in this case. This is yet another example of the CSA's administrative failures compounding and ultimately supportingI do not say that lightlythe attempts of an absent parent to avoid the financial duty of paying maintenance.
	The latest frustration for my constituent is that after her having supplied further information, the CSA announced that its computer does not recognise the postcode of the address at which the father is resident. Given the existence of databases such as electoral rolls and postcode directories, it beggars belief that the CSA can come to a grinding halt. However, that only ties in with what we have learned to our regret about the computer records of many Government agencies.
	Mrs. Summerbell told me that as of 13 October, the case file is still not on the computer. Given that it is described as a new case in the CSA's own nomenclature, the address could be put on the system manually. The irony is that the postcode remains unchanged from the previous occasions on which the CSA used it successfully to locate the person concerned.
	This case also demonstrates a glaring deficiency in the joined-up government of which this Government boast. One of the pieces of evidence in the case concerns payments to the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise. One would think that such information would be simple to check, but the CSA claims that it cannot do so.
	This case points to the total inadequacies of the system when it comes to providing for the child of a single parent where the absent parent appears determined to conceal his financial position. It is a situation where the mother struggles while the absent parent is wealthy. Cases such as these reveal the pressures that can be placed on the parent with care. Children can be used as pawns. The actions of the CSA should always be to foster the welfare of the child, not to appear to tolerate or turn a blind eye to unreasonable behaviour, nor to pressurise a parent into the acceptance of unreasonable behaviour. If duress is being placed on any party, matters such as access, level of maintenance or educational opportunity cannot be accepted as legitimate bargaining chips in pursuit of the settlement of the case.
	In my view, the agency must take those aspects into account when seeking a departure agreement. Ultimately, if the circumstances of the family are such that there is a strong likelihood of unreasonable pressure being exerted, the CSA should be able to examine another routenot just to declare that nothing further can be done. That may require legislation, but if it will secure a mechanism to ensure adequate financial provision for young children who are growing up without such provision at the moment, I hope that the Minister would consider it. In the short term, it is unacceptable that the CSA can refuse to examine an apparent inconsistency between the lifestyle of a parent and the assessed level of income on the grounds that something seems to be wrong with the agency's computer.
	Parents with care who are looking after their children are, by definition, living on a shoestring; otherwise, they would not be seeking the CSA's intervention. They do not have the resources necessary to invest in chasing up the agency. In fact, as I was preparing for this debate, I received another letter from my constituent, saying that she had been told that her file had been sent from the head office in Dudley to an office in Plymouth, which she now needed to contact, and, by the way, the case number had also changed.
	Mrs. Summerbell asked me to clarify that she asked the CSA to look into the previous case file, which would have shown how much information she had collected in the past. Sadly, my constituent's circumstances have not changed; nor have those of her child. After seven years, the delays continue. Mrs. Summerbell contacted the CSA at the end of June and was recently told that her case would have a commencement date of September because the agency did not make contact with the absent parent until August. That is when the agency file became livenearly three months laterand I understand that it is still pending.
	On that basis, parents with care need the skills of an archivist and the patience of a saint to keep track of all the documentation, the telephone calls, the personnel involved and to mark the time ticking relentlessly away as nothing happens. All that is quite apart from the expenses involved, which weigh heavily on families with slender purses. I believe that that is an injustice for parents and children such as my constituent and her son and I hope that the Minister will seek to right it, and do so with the immediate speed that parents and children in those circumstances deserve.
	In that context, Mrs. Summerbell has reminded me of a GMTV programme in which a mother was assured by a Minister in the other place and by the Secretary of State that her case would be dealt with expeditiously. That mother had been appealing for help for four years. I remind the Minister that Mrs. Summerbell first appealed to the CSA not four, but seven years ago.
	In conclusion, I would also like to raise my concern that, as I understand it, under the new chief executive of the CSA, the senior case worker role is about to abolished. I believe that that role is a worthwhile one and that this case would certainly have benefited from the attention of a senior case worker. Will the Minister comment on that, because I believe that the change will result in parents with care and children being less well served by the CSA than they are currently.
	I finish by observing that the last paragraph of my constituent's letter says it all. She believes that the father's lifestyle has not changed at all: he is still flying planes, going to private health clubs, driving high-class cars and so forth. Please, please help me, she says in the letter. You have given me the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to raise this matter on behalf of Mrs. Summerbell, so I hope that the Minister will be able to help my constituent this evening.

CORRECTION

18 October 2005: In col. 814, line 4, delete Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire) and insert Mr. Patrick McLoughlin (West Derbyshire).